Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I'm trying to think of an example of a belief in God that doesn't involve creating.
Maybe you could describe how you view God.
Elaine wrote: "Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I'm trying to think of an example of a belief in God that doesn't involve creating."
Your post didn't just involve creating. It involved a whole host of points that you described as following western tradition.
My point ... not all people of faith follow western tradition.
Not sure I understand the confusion.
Your post didn't just involve creating. It involved a whole host of points that you described as following western tradition.
My point ... not all people of faith follow western tradition.
Not sure I understand the confusion.
Elaine wrote: "Maybe you could describe how you view God."
I assume you're asking me....
May I ask why? I'm curious.
Further, while I could answer that question, as I've done many times here, I'm not sure that it would matter much. I'm one person. My description of God is valid for me and not a form of measurement to be applied to all people.
Which, ultimately, has been my point this afternoon and this evening.
Can people believe in "God" without religion? In my opinion, yes. Some do. Some don't, but some do.
There isn't one answer that fits all people and all circumstances. Not within the realm of non-believers and not within the realm of believers.
I assume you're asking me....
May I ask why? I'm curious.
Further, while I could answer that question, as I've done many times here, I'm not sure that it would matter much. I'm one person. My description of God is valid for me and not a form of measurement to be applied to all people.
Which, ultimately, has been my point this afternoon and this evening.
Can people believe in "God" without religion? In my opinion, yes. Some do. Some don't, but some do.
There isn't one answer that fits all people and all circumstances. Not within the realm of non-believers and not within the realm of believers.
I agree with you that all people of faith don't follow western tradition but several of the non-western traditions also don't believe in a single god or in any god, therefore, for people without any religious training they still have a conception of a god based on the cultural background in which they were raised, usually one based on the western tradition: creator, all-knowing, etc. Just curious: how do you describe God?
Elaine wrote: "therefore, for people without any religious training they still have a conception of a god based on the cultural background in which they were raised, usually one based on the western tradition: creator, all-knowing, etc. "
I disagree that most people find their spiritual beliefs within western tradition. Many. Not most. By far, not most.
I disagree that most people find their spiritual beliefs within western tradition. Many. Not most. By far, not most.
Elaine wrote: "Just curious: how do you describe God? "
Knowing it means nothing with regard to my point ... that there isn't one answer for all people and circumstances ... further, knowing it goes against my point?
Knowing it means nothing with regard to my point ... that there isn't one answer for all people and circumstances ... further, knowing it goes against my point?
Shannon wrote:"My description of God is valid for me and not a form of measurement to be applied to all people."Then what is god? This reduces "god" to an invisible friend. Just an amalgam of personal preferences...
Once you start believing in a god and "knowing" what it wants it's a religion...
Shanna wrote: "Then what is god? This reduces "god" to an invisible friend. Just an amalgam of personal preferences...
Once you start believing in a god and "knowing" what it wants it's a religion... "
Ahahaha... Fairly sure the "invisible friend" line has been used here regardless of a poster's definition or spiritual background.
Regarding religion, .... There are many, including people within the realm of science, who have a more complicated definition. I'm aware that's the definition used here by several non-believers. However, I'm also aware that many see it as being more involved.
Once you start believing in a god and "knowing" what it wants it's a religion... "
Ahahaha... Fairly sure the "invisible friend" line has been used here regardless of a poster's definition or spiritual background.
Regarding religion, .... There are many, including people within the realm of science, who have a more complicated definition. I'm aware that's the definition used here by several non-believers. However, I'm also aware that many see it as being more involved.
Jean wrote: "Kristal - Are you kidding? Do you really think that all people, if left to their own devices, would just be innocent and pure? That evil would just disappear because religion wouldn't be there to..."Actually, science has defined conscience.
Shannon, over half of the world's population belong to a faith based on the western tradition. Of course, what you might define as a western tradition may be different than mine.
Elaine wrote: "Shannon, over half of the world's population belong to a faith based on the western tradition. Of course, what you might define as a western tradition may be different than mine."
I'd have to check that statistic, Elaine.
My definition of western tradition isn't what's different. What's different? I'm saying most people don't follow western tradition. "Most" is not the correct qualifier.
I'd have to check that statistic, Elaine.
My definition of western tradition isn't what's different. What's different? I'm saying most people don't follow western tradition. "Most" is not the correct qualifier.
Shannon, how you view God is personal to you as it is to everyone but your view isn't something you just came up with completely out of the blue. You, like all of us, are steeped in the culture in which you were raised. Your beliefs, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, are heavily influence by your culture. this is why I keep harping on whether or not your belief in a god involves various characterstics such as god as a creator. My point is: belief in a god cannot exist without a religion as its basis.
Okay, to clarify. For me western tradition involves faiths based on monotheism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Eastern tradition: Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism. (I'm sure I left a few out!)
Elaine wrote: "Eastern tradition: Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism. (I'm sure I left a few out!) "
And, ... American Indian spiritual beliefs. The beliefs of native peoples in the Pacific, etc....
The percentage of whom...? I'd say at least 40%.
So, no, most people don't follow western tradition. Many, yes. Most? No.
And, ... American Indian spiritual beliefs. The beliefs of native peoples in the Pacific, etc....
The percentage of whom...? I'd say at least 40%.
So, no, most people don't follow western tradition. Many, yes. Most? No.
Elaine wrote: "My point is: belief in a god cannot exist without a religion as its basis. "
I disagree, and that's okay.
Regarding my wishes and what I'll admit....
I was raised in New England in the '70's, by parents and grandparents who weren't religious and never spoke to me of religion. However, by four or five, I started talking about the light. The light. Upon questioning, I described "people" in the light. I couldn't see them. It just looked like light. But, I could feel "them" ... sense them. If I weren't so little, I assume I would have said the light seemed to have some sort of consciousness. I said and remember feeling that the light was there, was always there, and cared for me.
This wasn't, in any way, in keeping with the cultural beliefs of my family or the people in my area at that time. Now? Sure. Then? Heck, no.
My mother rushed out, brought home a children's Bible, showed me a picture of a white-haired man in robes and on a cloud. She told me that was God and that was what I was talking about. I laughed and laughed and told her that man wasn't the light.
My point.... That standard understanding and answer might often be valid. It's isn't always.
We're in disagreement, but that's more than okay.
I disagree, and that's okay.
Regarding my wishes and what I'll admit....
I was raised in New England in the '70's, by parents and grandparents who weren't religious and never spoke to me of religion. However, by four or five, I started talking about the light. The light. Upon questioning, I described "people" in the light. I couldn't see them. It just looked like light. But, I could feel "them" ... sense them. If I weren't so little, I assume I would have said the light seemed to have some sort of consciousness. I said and remember feeling that the light was there, was always there, and cared for me.
This wasn't, in any way, in keeping with the cultural beliefs of my family or the people in my area at that time. Now? Sure. Then? Heck, no.
My mother rushed out, brought home a children's Bible, showed me a picture of a white-haired man in robes and on a cloud. She told me that was God and that was what I was talking about. I laughed and laughed and told her that man wasn't the light.
My point.... That standard understanding and answer might often be valid. It's isn't always.
We're in disagreement, but that's more than okay.
Ahahaha... Fairly sure the "invisible friend" line has been used here regardless of a poster's definition or spiritual background.I know it has.
But I'm perfectly serious, if your definition of god is applicable only to you, then what makes your "god" well, a god? and not, just your conscience or desires or aspirations (not to be god, but the embodiment of qualities you might aspire to)? If there is a god is this not a small way to define it? You are christian right? you make the argument that god is only valid in the personal definitions of each individual.
Regarding religion, .... There are many, including people within the realm of science, who have a more complicated definition. I'm aware that's the definition used here by several non-believers. However, I'm also aware that many see it as being more involved.
I agree there are many more sociological definitions but at it's core is the belief in a supernatural deity and the belief that it wants something from you.
Shannon, worldwide over 55% of people identify themselves as following the Christian, Islamic or Jewish faiths. The percentage of people today who follow the aboriginal beliefs is very small, and certainly not 40%. (or did I misinterpret what you were referring to when you stated 40%.
religion claims that it can justify everything that happens, in my world, and in everybody's world. and to a certain degree, it does. however, isn't religion the one thing that is creating a divide among like-blooded people? i believe, do not have to get into specifics about who hates whom. and even if, momentarily, we ignore inter religion hates, we have got intra religion issues: shias and sunnis, catholics and protestants and so on. wouldnt it be better if we just have an imperfect science trying to explain things, way beyond its domain, rather than have gods creating a divide?
Shanna wrote: "I know it has. But I'm perfectly serious, if your definition of god is applicable only to you, then what makes your "god" well, a god? and not, just your conscience or desires or aspirations (not to be god, but the embodiment of qualities you might aspire to)? If there is a god is this not a small way to define it? You are christian right? you make the argument that god is only valid in the personal definitions of each individual."
I know you're serious.
Regarding the rest of it, ....
If God exists, my thoughts and definitions aren't what create God. Yes, I believe God exists. Given that belief, I think God exists separate and apart from me and my beliefs. My aspirations...? I don't think I've ever aspired to be a light. You're also aware, given the many times I've answered this question, that I was raised United Methodist but had my name stricken from their rolls. You're also aware of all of the many why's behind that, so I'll not go into them again. The upshot, as I'm sure you remember, is the fact that I don't fit within any religion and never have done.
I know you're serious.
Regarding the rest of it, ....
If God exists, my thoughts and definitions aren't what create God. Yes, I believe God exists. Given that belief, I think God exists separate and apart from me and my beliefs. My aspirations...? I don't think I've ever aspired to be a light. You're also aware, given the many times I've answered this question, that I was raised United Methodist but had my name stricken from their rolls. You're also aware of all of the many why's behind that, so I'll not go into them again. The upshot, as I'm sure you remember, is the fact that I don't fit within any religion and never have done.
Thank you, Shannon, for your explanation. As you might have guessed, I have a keen interest in religion, particularly the history of religion, so I do sincerely appreciate your comment. As for me, I was raised in the Catholic church but in my 20s I realized that I didn't believe in a god. I fought against this because I was taught that atheists were evil. To this day I still have difficulty with thinking of myself as an atheist; however, a person doesn't choose to become an atheist, rather it is an awareness that there isn't a god
Elaine wrote: "The percentage of people today who follow the aboriginal beliefs is very small, and certainly not 40%. (or did I misinterpret what you were referring to when you stated 40%. "
Yes, you misinterpreted.
The post reads,
"Elaine wrote: "Eastern tradition: Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism. (I'm sure I left a few out!) "
And, ... American Indian spiritual beliefs. The beliefs of native peoples in the Pacific, etc...."
Of all of the people who practice Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism, American Indian spiritual beliefs, and the beliefs of the native peoples of the Pacific, etc..., I'm fairly sure at least 40% of the world's population do not find their spirituality through the west.
Yes, you misinterpreted.
The post reads,
"Elaine wrote: "Eastern tradition: Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism. (I'm sure I left a few out!) "
And, ... American Indian spiritual beliefs. The beliefs of native peoples in the Pacific, etc...."
Of all of the people who practice Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Shintoism, American Indian spiritual beliefs, and the beliefs of the native peoples of the Pacific, etc..., I'm fairly sure at least 40% of the world's population do not find their spirituality through the west.
Nilima wrote: "isn't religion the one thing that is creating a divide among like-blooded people?"
Well, that ...
That and things like greed. The need for land and natural resources. Historically, that figures much more prominently than religion in creating contention between people.
Well, that ...
That and things like greed. The need for land and natural resources. Historically, that figures much more prominently than religion in creating contention between people.
I know you're serious. Regarding the rest of it, ....
If God exists, my thoughts and definitions aren't what create God. Yes, I believe God exists. Given that belief, I think God exists separate and apart from me and my beliefs. My aspirations...? I don't think I've ever aspired to be a light.
God is a light?
Is the god you believe, the god of the christian bible?
Shanna wrote: "God is a light?
Is the god you believe is the god of the christian bible? "
Light. Energy. Yes, that's what I saw prior to any religious indoctrination and that's what I felt. I still do.
Regarding the Christian Bible, you're well aware of the fact that I believe the Christian Bible, along with all holy books, were written by men who were fallible.
It's getting late, Shanna. While it's been fun, I'll catch my second wind if I don't turn in now. Then, I'll be up all night, which won't make me any fun come morning.
Is the god you believe is the god of the christian bible? "
Light. Energy. Yes, that's what I saw prior to any religious indoctrination and that's what I felt. I still do.
Regarding the Christian Bible, you're well aware of the fact that I believe the Christian Bible, along with all holy books, were written by men who were fallible.
It's getting late, Shanna. While it's been fun, I'll catch my second wind if I don't turn in now. Then, I'll be up all night, which won't make me any fun come morning.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "God is a light?Is the god you believe is the god of the christian bible? "
Light. Energy. Yes, that's what I saw prior to any religious indoctrination and that's what I felt. ..."
See you in the morning sleep well
And for the record I know you know the bible was written by fallible men. But do you believe those fallible men were writing of the light/energy you feel? Do you define this light/energy as the abrahamic god or is it something else?
Shanna wrote: "But do you believe those fallible men were writing of the light/energy you feel? Do you define this light/energy as the abrahamic god or is it something else? "
Regarding the first question, ... aspects of, yes. Especially in some of the stories attributed to Jesus.
Of course, remember I've always said (and truly believe) that all religions know certain aspects, certain truths, about "God" and spirituality.
Do I define "God" as the Abrahamic God? You know, I don't know. I don't know that I'm overly into defining God. Even as a little girl, when my parents (mother) did start taking me to church, I was pretty resistant to defining God. Putting God in a box never seemed quite right.
In fact, .... Have you ever seen re-runs of a show called the Waltons? I flipping loved that show. A family in the mountains of Virginia during the Depression and WWII. I grew up on that show ... and Bewitched ... and the Brady Bunch ... and Charlie's Angels, which likely says something about my personality.
At any rate, the mother and grandmother were Baptists who went to church all the time and pulled out the Bible to read scripture, etc.... The father, on the other hand, next to never went to church and wasn't even, I don't think, a Baptist ... at least didn't claim that for himself. He'd go to the mountain, walk around in nature, just be on Sundays ... every day. Interestingly, I always felt he had more faith ... was more "Christian" than his wife and mother. For example, in one episode, they finally had the money to pay off a bill or mortgage. That was a big deal. At the same time, their good friend was about to lose everything due to an unwise investment. The father, immediately, said they'd use their money to help their friend. The wife was going on and on about how it was their money, their hard work, their .... She'd run in the house and grabbed her Bible. Honestly, I can't remember what words of wisdom John Walton, the father, had for her. But, I remember sitting there and thinking, dang, John Walton is the one, for all of his never going to church and simply hanging out in nature, who is really and truly good ... and exhibits traits of a Christian. Giving up your money in order to help someone else.
My father and I used to "joke" constantly about this. My father was "John Walton" ... never going to church and hanging out in the woods. I wanted to be "John Walton" with my father. Why did I have to go to church with my mother? Couldn't I be "John Walton" that Sunday and hang out in the woods?
(Elaine ... After talking about the light, my mother took me to church a time or two. It didn't end well. The Sunday school teacher, .... Well, it must have been December and I can only remember going one time. There was a Christmas tree and a baby doll under it and the other children had presents. Presents were set aside for children who didn't bring presents. Enter nasty tone of voice ... that's the tone the teacher used when she gave me one of those presents. All to give the baby Jesus, who was the doll under the tree. This wasn't the UMC; I can't remember what church it was. My mother had never gone to church before, ever, and just picked one nearby. Anyway, I told the teacher what was under the tree was a baby doll ... not the baby Jesus, who wasn't a baby anymore. My mother had read that story and others prior to going to church that day. That didn't go over well. And, ... I asked why in the world Jesus and God would need presents. I'd seen them. They were a light and they didn't need presents. Then, I noticed she proceeded to call up all the boys first, to give their presents first. I stopped her at one point and asked if she thought it would be a good idea to let one of the girls go up next. She said she was calling the boys because the baby Jesus loved boys more than girls. That's when it hit the fan for real. I popped up, dropped my present, and started going on and on about how I'd seen the light and my mother said the light was God and Jesus and I knew about the light and the light loved us and loved little girls and little boys and didn't need stupid presents and that she was wrong, wrong, wrong. And, I ran out of the room, up the stairs, into the sanctuary, and told my mother we had to leave ... right that second ... crying and upset. I wasn't the sort to throw tantrums and we left. I'm sure we earned quite the reputation! She didn't take me to church again until middle school ... but insisted on confirmation classes at that time.)
Going back to John Walton, Shanna, and the mountain and the woods, I've long wondered if I'm not more "Pagan" than anything else.
And, of course, my American Indian ancestry began to come into play. The idea that we're all connected, that every living thing has the essence of Great Spirit ... lessons learned from animals and stories connected to the different directions. Eagle and mouse being the one I connect with the most. Finding a balance between seeing the bigger picture, as the eagle, and seeing the close-up and individual story as the mouse.
In truth, I'm not hedging. It's simply that, as I've said before, I've never really fit within any of the religions. I've always seen aspects of this one and that which remind me of the light I first saw and felt when I was knee-high to a tadpole. Heck, I just took my first T'ai Chi lesson ever the other day and ... LOVED ... it. The instructor talking about some aspect of Buddhism and feeling the energy when we turned and did this thing with our hands, like holding a ball ... holding energy.
I honestly don't know how I define the light/God. I know what I feel, what I sense, and have always felt and sensed. I know I've had experiences with various religions that have reminded me of that light and that sensing. I think I've had glimpses of God, of knowing God. But, frankly, I think the light/God is much bigger than any definition we could conceive of ....
I think we can only hope to glimpse aspects of God and know aspects of God. I, for sure, don't have the answer or the answers regarding this topic. Not even for myself on some days. For sure not for everyone else. That's not a comfortable place to be. I've always thought it would be so much easier ... if I accepted a definition, one religion, and put myself and the light/God into a box and stayed there. I've never been that person, though. From my earliest memories and from stories told, my personality and spirit were never much for forcing labels and definitions to things and living in boxes.
Regarding the first question, ... aspects of, yes. Especially in some of the stories attributed to Jesus.
Of course, remember I've always said (and truly believe) that all religions know certain aspects, certain truths, about "God" and spirituality.
Do I define "God" as the Abrahamic God? You know, I don't know. I don't know that I'm overly into defining God. Even as a little girl, when my parents (mother) did start taking me to church, I was pretty resistant to defining God. Putting God in a box never seemed quite right.
In fact, .... Have you ever seen re-runs of a show called the Waltons? I flipping loved that show. A family in the mountains of Virginia during the Depression and WWII. I grew up on that show ... and Bewitched ... and the Brady Bunch ... and Charlie's Angels, which likely says something about my personality.
At any rate, the mother and grandmother were Baptists who went to church all the time and pulled out the Bible to read scripture, etc.... The father, on the other hand, next to never went to church and wasn't even, I don't think, a Baptist ... at least didn't claim that for himself. He'd go to the mountain, walk around in nature, just be on Sundays ... every day. Interestingly, I always felt he had more faith ... was more "Christian" than his wife and mother. For example, in one episode, they finally had the money to pay off a bill or mortgage. That was a big deal. At the same time, their good friend was about to lose everything due to an unwise investment. The father, immediately, said they'd use their money to help their friend. The wife was going on and on about how it was their money, their hard work, their .... She'd run in the house and grabbed her Bible. Honestly, I can't remember what words of wisdom John Walton, the father, had for her. But, I remember sitting there and thinking, dang, John Walton is the one, for all of his never going to church and simply hanging out in nature, who is really and truly good ... and exhibits traits of a Christian. Giving up your money in order to help someone else.
My father and I used to "joke" constantly about this. My father was "John Walton" ... never going to church and hanging out in the woods. I wanted to be "John Walton" with my father. Why did I have to go to church with my mother? Couldn't I be "John Walton" that Sunday and hang out in the woods?
(Elaine ... After talking about the light, my mother took me to church a time or two. It didn't end well. The Sunday school teacher, .... Well, it must have been December and I can only remember going one time. There was a Christmas tree and a baby doll under it and the other children had presents. Presents were set aside for children who didn't bring presents. Enter nasty tone of voice ... that's the tone the teacher used when she gave me one of those presents. All to give the baby Jesus, who was the doll under the tree. This wasn't the UMC; I can't remember what church it was. My mother had never gone to church before, ever, and just picked one nearby. Anyway, I told the teacher what was under the tree was a baby doll ... not the baby Jesus, who wasn't a baby anymore. My mother had read that story and others prior to going to church that day. That didn't go over well. And, ... I asked why in the world Jesus and God would need presents. I'd seen them. They were a light and they didn't need presents. Then, I noticed she proceeded to call up all the boys first, to give their presents first. I stopped her at one point and asked if she thought it would be a good idea to let one of the girls go up next. She said she was calling the boys because the baby Jesus loved boys more than girls. That's when it hit the fan for real. I popped up, dropped my present, and started going on and on about how I'd seen the light and my mother said the light was God and Jesus and I knew about the light and the light loved us and loved little girls and little boys and didn't need stupid presents and that she was wrong, wrong, wrong. And, I ran out of the room, up the stairs, into the sanctuary, and told my mother we had to leave ... right that second ... crying and upset. I wasn't the sort to throw tantrums and we left. I'm sure we earned quite the reputation! She didn't take me to church again until middle school ... but insisted on confirmation classes at that time.)
Going back to John Walton, Shanna, and the mountain and the woods, I've long wondered if I'm not more "Pagan" than anything else.
And, of course, my American Indian ancestry began to come into play. The idea that we're all connected, that every living thing has the essence of Great Spirit ... lessons learned from animals and stories connected to the different directions. Eagle and mouse being the one I connect with the most. Finding a balance between seeing the bigger picture, as the eagle, and seeing the close-up and individual story as the mouse.
In truth, I'm not hedging. It's simply that, as I've said before, I've never really fit within any of the religions. I've always seen aspects of this one and that which remind me of the light I first saw and felt when I was knee-high to a tadpole. Heck, I just took my first T'ai Chi lesson ever the other day and ... LOVED ... it. The instructor talking about some aspect of Buddhism and feeling the energy when we turned and did this thing with our hands, like holding a ball ... holding energy.
I honestly don't know how I define the light/God. I know what I feel, what I sense, and have always felt and sensed. I know I've had experiences with various religions that have reminded me of that light and that sensing. I think I've had glimpses of God, of knowing God. But, frankly, I think the light/God is much bigger than any definition we could conceive of ....
I think we can only hope to glimpse aspects of God and know aspects of God. I, for sure, don't have the answer or the answers regarding this topic. Not even for myself on some days. For sure not for everyone else. That's not a comfortable place to be. I've always thought it would be so much easier ... if I accepted a definition, one religion, and put myself and the light/God into a box and stayed there. I've never been that person, though. From my earliest memories and from stories told, my personality and spirit were never much for forcing labels and definitions to things and living in boxes.
Shannon, a few years ago I met a woman who believed utterly in ghosts. Being an incurably curious person I questioned her extensively on her beliefs. She also spoke of lights and energy. If she had heard your story she would attribute it to a dead person trying to make contact with you. She spoke a lot about how ghosts were able to connect easier with young children. According to her, imaginary playmates that preschool children talk about are actually ghosts. (I will add, that even after talking to her,and she spoke quite persuasively, I still don't believe in ghosts.)
Shannon, despite the fact that I don't believe in a god, I do understand and have experienced what is termed spirituality. One of my passions is canoeing andn camping in the wilderness. It is when I am paddling on a calm lake on a sunny day or watching the sun set at night that I feel a huge connection to the Earth and all aspects of it, the animate and the inanimate. I don't attribute this feeling to a god or any other force.
Elaine wrote: "Shannon, a few years ago I met a woman who believed utterly in ghosts. Being an incurably curious person I questioned her extensively on her beliefs. She also spoke of lights and energy. If she ..."
I've heard similar things over the past few years. Ghosts and "the light" are very "in" now. I don't know if I believe in ghosts or not. Well, let me rephrase. I imagine there could be ghosts, yes. I think it's possible but don't understand it or know how it works. Further, I don't talk to dead people. ;) Unless I'm at a cemetery and have things to say to loved ones. Never know if they can hear me or not, though.
I've heard similar things over the past few years. Ghosts and "the light" are very "in" now. I don't know if I believe in ghosts or not. Well, let me rephrase. I imagine there could be ghosts, yes. I think it's possible but don't understand it or know how it works. Further, I don't talk to dead people. ;) Unless I'm at a cemetery and have things to say to loved ones. Never know if they can hear me or not, though.
Elaine wrote: " One of my passions is canoeing andn camping in the wilderness. It is when I am paddling on a calm lake on a sunny day or watching the sun set at night that I feel a huge connection to the Earth and all aspects of it, the animate and the inanimate."
Sounds beautiful. I haven't gone canoeing in a long time. Would like to go again at some point! I don't camp, but I do go hiking around and about. I imagine I've had a similar feeling, like the one you describe, on the top of certain mountains. The pic I have now was taken last summer, on the way of Mt. Mansfield in Vermont, looking back toward the Worcester Range in Vermont. Looking forward to going up again in the next month or so. I definitely feel a sense of quiet, peace and connection there.
Sounds beautiful. I haven't gone canoeing in a long time. Would like to go again at some point! I don't camp, but I do go hiking around and about. I imagine I've had a similar feeling, like the one you describe, on the top of certain mountains. The pic I have now was taken last summer, on the way of Mt. Mansfield in Vermont, looking back toward the Worcester Range in Vermont. Looking forward to going up again in the next month or so. I definitely feel a sense of quiet, peace and connection there.
Shannon, you certainly live in a beautiful part of the world, especially in the autumn!
Religion ruins everything!
Elaine wrote: "Shannon, you certainly live in a beautiful part of the world, especially in the autumn!"
:)
:)
Wow, Salmaan! Everything is ruined by religion? Although I am an atheist I do see a place for religion in the private lives of people. It has certainly provided solace to people when they are in despair. For some people it is a motivational source to help others (but not required, of course). That said, I believe religion should be kept completely out of the public life with no connection to government, education, the justice system, etc.
I think I'd prefer a world where one doesn't try to vanquish the other. Like Vetra I'd like a world where one compliments the other. And none is used to fulfill ambitions of any kind. Be it spiritual or financial. After all its our quest to understand the unknown that we turn to various methods. And what is more unknown than the Almighty god. My point is simple. As long as we keep fighting amongst ourselves true progress will be lacking in some way or the other. And if someday some fascinating thing is discovered then the wonder of the find will be lost in the raging battle between Scientists and Religious groups. After all its not science and religion that are fighting but humans.
I recall the issue of the IRS "targeting" conservative groups was raised here before. It appears things weren't quite as claimed.http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/...
cerebus wrote: "I recall the issue of the IRS "targeting" conservative groups was raised here before. It appears things weren't quite as claimed.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/......"
Given the clear bias of Media Matters, I looked to confirm this elsewhere.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoliti...
I find myself wondering a few things.... Where are our reporters? Is there a reason they didn't pick up on this? Especially given that, per the NPR article, this was alluded to in the May testimony. Why wouldn't the IRS and the administration come out with this two months ago? If they targeted liberal groups equally, why didn't they say so?
But, here's the kicker.... What flashed before my eyes? All of the times politicians have used IG reports with the American people in order to prove a claim. For example, President Obama and the Democrats used the IG and IG reports to push through health care legislation. You know, the bill they had to pass in order to find out what was in it.
For me, it rather called everything into question. Pointed out that it's all in the question, isn't it? And, ... something can allegedly be used by politicians in order to spin quite a tale, while the IG says nothing and the press doesn't find out.
Can't wait to discover whether or not the progressive groups were targeted to the same extent. What do you think? Will that be reported upon via hard evidence? The NPR article said, at this point, it's impossible to say whether or not progressive groups were targeted with the same verve.
(Again, wondering why those groups and people didn't step forward during the past two months.... Not saying they don't exist. Simply wondering at their silence and, given that politics is at the heart of this, if that silence was strategic. And, ... ultimately, we are aware from reporting that some groups associated with the president were fast-tracked, times 100. Or, was that reporting inaccurate? Or,... is it okay to fast-track certain groups? If so, why?)
Will someone ask the IG to report on all groups who were targeted for special treatment and denied the fast-track option given to some?
Will wait for that, but likely won't hold my breath.
Ultimately, this proves, again, that the American people have cause not to trust the government, sadly. Politicians, likely on both sides, use all sorts of things, even IG reports, in order to create enough smoke before the mirror to fool all sorts of people.
Bravo, American government. Not.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/......"
Given the clear bias of Media Matters, I looked to confirm this elsewhere.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoliti...
I find myself wondering a few things.... Where are our reporters? Is there a reason they didn't pick up on this? Especially given that, per the NPR article, this was alluded to in the May testimony. Why wouldn't the IRS and the administration come out with this two months ago? If they targeted liberal groups equally, why didn't they say so?
But, here's the kicker.... What flashed before my eyes? All of the times politicians have used IG reports with the American people in order to prove a claim. For example, President Obama and the Democrats used the IG and IG reports to push through health care legislation. You know, the bill they had to pass in order to find out what was in it.
For me, it rather called everything into question. Pointed out that it's all in the question, isn't it? And, ... something can allegedly be used by politicians in order to spin quite a tale, while the IG says nothing and the press doesn't find out.
Can't wait to discover whether or not the progressive groups were targeted to the same extent. What do you think? Will that be reported upon via hard evidence? The NPR article said, at this point, it's impossible to say whether or not progressive groups were targeted with the same verve.
(Again, wondering why those groups and people didn't step forward during the past two months.... Not saying they don't exist. Simply wondering at their silence and, given that politics is at the heart of this, if that silence was strategic. And, ... ultimately, we are aware from reporting that some groups associated with the president were fast-tracked, times 100. Or, was that reporting inaccurate? Or,... is it okay to fast-track certain groups? If so, why?)
Will someone ask the IG to report on all groups who were targeted for special treatment and denied the fast-track option given to some?
Will wait for that, but likely won't hold my breath.
Ultimately, this proves, again, that the American people have cause not to trust the government, sadly. Politicians, likely on both sides, use all sorts of things, even IG reports, in order to create enough smoke before the mirror to fool all sorts of people.
Bravo, American government. Not.
cerebus wrote: "http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendly..."
Not denying that statistic, in that I've heard this before.
However, ....
As I was reading the article, which covered a lot of ground despite the title, and came to this, I wondered.
You see, I'd read your last post first. So, it was at the forefront of my brain. It's all in the question, isn't it? I wondered how the question was phrased and if there were followup questions to get to the why's of the thing.
Did you see the question? It's printed at the bottom of the graphic.
"Answers: ("very threatening" and "fairly threatening") to the question: "Think about the different religions of the world. How threatening or how enriching do you think the following religions are?"
Okay, ....
Seriously?
I now know there are atheists who serve as humanist pastors in the military and on Ivy League campuses across the country, and there are now atheist church services.
But, seriously?
This group, the group conducting the research, asked people to think about the world's religions and assess whether the following religions were threatening or enriching ... and ... included atheists as a world religion?
Does anyone have problems with that?
Could that call this data into question? I mean, I know people don't trust atheists. Personal anecdote. Various studies. But, for this particular study, would such a glaring issue not question validity? Maybe one of the science people could answer. I'm thinking poetry right now. Entering dark branches and all that. I'm not the mathematical/scientific mind of the group. Having said that, I'm fairly certain this calls the data into question.
I'm also fascinated by how the question was phrased separate and apart from the above. The two should have been asked at different times. The threat of world religions. The enriching aspects of world religions. I learned about this in college. When creating tests for students and posing this type of question, you need to create two different questions else they'd focus unduly on the first part of the question. Rather salts the stew. Religions and threats.... That was likely in their heads as they responded, more so, so said my college professors, than the enriching aspects. Wonder why it was phrased that way? Guesses? Further, just because I'm curious, I wonder if there were more answers than very threatening and fairly threatening. I should imagine so. I would hope so. But, at this point, who the heck knows. Right?
Not denying that statistic, in that I've heard this before.
However, ....
As I was reading the article, which covered a lot of ground despite the title, and came to this, I wondered.
You see, I'd read your last post first. So, it was at the forefront of my brain. It's all in the question, isn't it? I wondered how the question was phrased and if there were followup questions to get to the why's of the thing.
Did you see the question? It's printed at the bottom of the graphic.
"Answers: ("very threatening" and "fairly threatening") to the question: "Think about the different religions of the world. How threatening or how enriching do you think the following religions are?"
Okay, ....
Seriously?
I now know there are atheists who serve as humanist pastors in the military and on Ivy League campuses across the country, and there are now atheist church services.
But, seriously?
This group, the group conducting the research, asked people to think about the world's religions and assess whether the following religions were threatening or enriching ... and ... included atheists as a world religion?
Does anyone have problems with that?
Could that call this data into question? I mean, I know people don't trust atheists. Personal anecdote. Various studies. But, for this particular study, would such a glaring issue not question validity? Maybe one of the science people could answer. I'm thinking poetry right now. Entering dark branches and all that. I'm not the mathematical/scientific mind of the group. Having said that, I'm fairly certain this calls the data into question.
I'm also fascinated by how the question was phrased separate and apart from the above. The two should have been asked at different times. The threat of world religions. The enriching aspects of world religions. I learned about this in college. When creating tests for students and posing this type of question, you need to create two different questions else they'd focus unduly on the first part of the question. Rather salts the stew. Religions and threats.... That was likely in their heads as they responded, more so, so said my college professors, than the enriching aspects. Wonder why it was phrased that way? Guesses? Further, just because I'm curious, I wonder if there were more answers than very threatening and fairly threatening. I should imagine so. I would hope so. But, at this point, who the heck knows. Right?
Religion. Serves no purpose.
It is not religion that has value. It is faith. And, although I have neither, I do see the reason faith matters. Religion on the other hand is a thing invented by people to use as a weapon against others, and a thing to use as a profit machine. However, if religion or science are my only choices, and faith is not a choice, then I pick science.
cerebus wrote: "I recall the issue of the IRS "targeting" conservative groups was raised here before. It appears things weren't quite as claimed.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/......"
The difference a few hours makes.... It seems things were as claimed, if this is accurate. This also answers a few of the questions I posed this morning.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money...
It seems the inspector general cleared some of this up in a letter written to Congress yesterday. Among other things, I find this interesting.
"The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political."
We'll see if this gets covered.
The Hill, by the way, employees very liberal and very conservative correspondents. There's a mix.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/......"
The difference a few hours makes.... It seems things were as claimed, if this is accurate. This also answers a few of the questions I posed this morning.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money...
It seems the inspector general cleared some of this up in a letter written to Congress yesterday. Among other things, I find this interesting.
"The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political."
We'll see if this gets covered.
The Hill, by the way, employees very liberal and very conservative correspondents. There's a mix.
Oh tsk. As far as I'm concerned no political group, and that includes all churches who get into politics, should be tax exempt. No matter which party.
Joanne wrote: "Oh tsk. As far as I'm concerned no political group, and that includes all churches who get into politics, should be tax exempt. No matter which party."
Totally agree, Joanne. I've been saying that for awhile. Like, ... Media Matters, for example. They're tax exempt. Why in the heck? They're into politics and exist for no other reason than dealing with politics and political commentary. Give me a break. I'm sure there are a bunch of conservative outfits who also have tax exempt status. My brain is drawing a blank, but I know I've read about them.
Frankly, at this point, in my opinion, the only people who don't have tax exempt status in America are middle class citizens. I find it disgusting. Further, I don't, frankly, give a flying fig if different groups, political or religious, are doing good works for society or not. Good as defined by whom, by the way? As assessed by whom? And, really, groups who supposedly exist to do good should pony up and pay their taxes. Go ahead. Do good and pay. I do good works, charitable works, and have done for years. I still pay taxes and, since I don't own a home and am single, I get bupkis for tax breaks. Yet, shoot, here I am still giving to charity and doing good works. As far as I'm concerned, tax-exempt status is complete and utter bull, especially as it's used today.
However, having said that, the government, depending upon the politics of the controlling party, has no right whatsoever to play games with this. And, ... we need more investigative reporters in this country.
Of course, regarding the latter, I'm reading all sources are dying up since the administration was outed for taping the AP, etc....
A very sad state of affairs ... that has nothing to do with science or religion and everything to do with greed.
Totally agree, Joanne. I've been saying that for awhile. Like, ... Media Matters, for example. They're tax exempt. Why in the heck? They're into politics and exist for no other reason than dealing with politics and political commentary. Give me a break. I'm sure there are a bunch of conservative outfits who also have tax exempt status. My brain is drawing a blank, but I know I've read about them.
Frankly, at this point, in my opinion, the only people who don't have tax exempt status in America are middle class citizens. I find it disgusting. Further, I don't, frankly, give a flying fig if different groups, political or religious, are doing good works for society or not. Good as defined by whom, by the way? As assessed by whom? And, really, groups who supposedly exist to do good should pony up and pay their taxes. Go ahead. Do good and pay. I do good works, charitable works, and have done for years. I still pay taxes and, since I don't own a home and am single, I get bupkis for tax breaks. Yet, shoot, here I am still giving to charity and doing good works. As far as I'm concerned, tax-exempt status is complete and utter bull, especially as it's used today.
However, having said that, the government, depending upon the politics of the controlling party, has no right whatsoever to play games with this. And, ... we need more investigative reporters in this country.
Of course, regarding the latter, I'm reading all sources are dying up since the administration was outed for taping the AP, etc....
A very sad state of affairs ... that has nothing to do with science or religion and everything to do with greed.
You're both right of course. When we talk of cleaning up the tax code, tax-exempts would be a good place to start.
We need understanding and spirituality; and that is not the same as just science or religion....For a balance in existence you cannot have one without the other, and the truth is not the same to have science without respect and religion with seclusion and fear.
If they are to work they have to be with UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVE if not then is not to create but to destroy.
Ken wrote: "You're both right of course. When we talk of cleaning up the tax code, tax-exempts would be a good place to start."
Agreed.
Sadly, though, what are the chances that we'll move past talk, especially partisan talk?
We can hope, I suppose.
Agreed.
Sadly, though, what are the chances that we'll move past talk, especially partisan talk?
We can hope, I suppose.
I'm not American so I don't understand the connection between the IRS and religion. I'm guessing that churches (and just churches or all faith groups?) get some form of tax break. Is this currently an issue under discussion in the US?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Yes, but not all follow those traditions.