Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Religion

Expand Messages
  • daniel_needles
    Mr. Click, This is a good point. IMHO the trick is where the focus is. Relgion usually has two conflicting messages: 1. Us or them; join us or die. 2. Why
    Message 1 of 156 , May 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Click,

      This is a good point. IMHO the trick is where the focus is. Relgion
      usually has two conflicting messages:

      1. Us or them; join us or die.
      2. Why can't we all be nice to one another and love "God."

      One is from the heart, the other is for preservation and propogation
      of the belief construct. Most "Messiac" figures when they emerge
      focus on (2). As the religion has difficulties "serving" the members,
      it must focus on (1) or die. The message becomes believe and live
      (implying otherwise you'll die.) Less and less will (2) be preached.

      Thanks,
      Daniel


      --- In existlist@y..., "clickhereforinsignificance" <livewild@h...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Guys,
      >
      > religion is not to blame for war.. any more than capitalism....
      > communism... or any other way of thinking. They are all
      only "thought
      > processes" what one does with them is another story entirely.
      >
      > Religious constructs onto themselves are not evil or a sign of
      > stupidity. Einstein was a devout Jew. Was he stupid? We all live
      with
      > our own brand of mythology.... unless of course you profess to know
      > the truth about existence?
      >
      > People crusading for power is usually to blame for war and the
      > masses that buy into it. Trying to pin evil down on one group... or
      > brand of thinking... makes one fall into the category of hate
      > mongering that one accuses others of... .but then again... maybe
      I'm
      > hate mongering? : )
      >
      > J.Aiden
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@y..., George Walton <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
      > > Eduard,
      > >
      > > I'll poll my neurons [all 6 of them, eh?] and let you
      > > know tomorrow whether India has God on its side in
      > > this South Asian nuclear showdown. Right now it's just
      > > too close to call.
      > >
      > > Sure, any group formed will, sooner or later, branch
      > > out into the political arena if they want to be more
      > > then footnotes from footnotes from the appendix of
      > > some obscure vanity press edition of the Human
      > > Condition. But, taking a gander at the 20th Century,
      > > you tell me how these other groups stack up regarding,
      > > say, genocide and mass murder to Communism and Fascism
      > > and Nationalism and Global Capitalism. Admittedly, the
      > > religous folks did tone down their own aggression in
      > > the last century [what's Northern Ireland and Bosnia
      > > next to the Crusades, eh?] but where were the church
      > > leaders in rallying the flocks to rise up against this
      > > butchery? Maybe you should reseach it more thoroughly
      > > as NOOism gets closer and closer to that "fundamnental
      > > element" Thank God I just renewed my subscribtion to
      > > Nature. That IS where you will publish the empirical
      > > data, right?
      > >
      > > Just joshing, my friend.
      > >
      > > Biggie
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- Eduard Alf <yeoman@v...> wrote:
      > > > Biggie,
      > > >
      > > > I suppose that you are right, but then any group
      > > > formed for whatever reason leads to political
      > > > power. It does not have to be for a god or a
      > > > philosopher king.
      > > >
      > > > Perhaps if Pakistan drops the bomb on India, it
      > > > might do the world some good.
      > > >
      > > > Anyway, NOOism tries to get down to the
      > > > fundamental element. If all we are doing is
      > > > trying to make our neurons happy, then one could
      > > > question why all this religious stuff. In other
      > > > words one fantasy is as good as another.
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: George Walton
      > > > [mailto:iambiguously@y...]
      > > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:18 PM
      > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Selfish
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Eduard,
      > > >
      > > > Had Herr Marx first consulted his local chapter of
      > > > Ideologues Anonymous about it, I'm sure he would
      > > > have.
      > > >
      > > > Does it really matter if Dogma [Idealism, buck
      > > > naked]
      > > > is attached to God or some Philosopher King?
      > > > Sooner or
      > > > later, as history horrifically attests, it tends
      > > > to
      > > > transfigure into political power. The rest, as
      > > > they
      > > > say, really IS history, eh?
      > > >
      > > > I wonder, for example, what glowing transcendental
      > > > apologies India and Pakistan will prooffer the
      > > > world
      > > > when the nuclear warheads start flying. I mean,
      > > > they
      > > > can't just say it's about naked aggression or
      > > > economic
      > > > plunder or land grabs.
      > > >
      > > > Or maybe this time, as Mr Zimmerman opined, "if
      > > > God's
      > > > on our side, He will stop the next war."
      > > >
      > > > Hey, how optimistic can we be, though, given His
      > > > record so far?
      > > >
      > > > Biggie
      > > >
      > > > --- Eduard Alf <yeoman@v...> wrote:
      > > > > George,
      > > > >
      > > > > Wasn't it Marx who said that, "communism is the
      > > > > opium of the masses" ... ??
      > > > >
      > > > > eduard
      > > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: George Walton
      > > > > [mailto:iambiguously@y...]
      > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:41 PM
      > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Selfish
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Click,
      > > > >
      > > > > As with everthing else, we take out of Mother
      > > > > Theresa
      > > > > what we put into her: our self. In other words,
      > > > we
      > > > > do
      > > > > not see her the way she WAS; we see her,
      > > > instead,
      > > > > the
      > > > > way WE are.
      > > > >
      > > > > I have read arguements that she was, above all,
      > > > a
      > > > > meglomanical fountainhead for all that religion
      > > > > stands
      > > > > for in this world: intellectual stupor that
      > > > helps
      > > > > perpetuate the savage exploitation and
      > > > oppression
      > > > > embedded in a planet in which a tiny % of the
      > > > > world's
      > > > > population owns and operates a very large % of
      > > > its
      > > > > wealth.
      > > > >
      > > > > While religion may function on an individual
      > > > level
      > > > > to
      > > > > secure the emotional and psycholgocical
      > > > equanimity
      > > > > weak minds crave, it pretty much functions as
      > > > Marx
      > > > > said it does when expressed in the context of
      > > > both
      > > > > political economy and philosophy.
      > > > >
      > > > > But, hey, that's just my own opinion, of course.
      > > > >
      > > > > Biggie
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- clickhereforinsignificance
      > > > > <livewild@h...>
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > George, James, Adam, Eduard,
      > > > > > andanyoneelsethatcarestodebatethepoint
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Mother Theresa selfish and out for self
      > > > > > gratification?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Wow.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Perhaps from a spiritual/consciousness
      > > > > standpoint...
      > > > > > but I thought
      > > > > > this was an existentialist group? I thought
      > > > > actions
      > > > > > are what
      > > > > > supposedly define you.... not random thoughts?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Interesting how the mind finds new ways to
      > > > > justify
      > > > > > things when
      > > > > > presented with uncomfortable inconsistancies
      > > > in
      > > > > > their own actions.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Mind you, not saying I'm any better....
      > > > > >
      > > > > > J.Aiden
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ----------------------------
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In existlist@y..., George Walton
      > > > > > <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > Click,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Defining "selfish" and construing it are
      > > > very
      > > > > > > different things.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > A dictionary denotes meaning to be one thing
      > > > > while
      > > > > > > individuals connote meaning across a much
      > > > > broader
      > > > > > > spectrum.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > For example, when Bill Gates gives billions
      > > > to
      > > > > > charity
      > > > > > > and there are banner headlines screaming,
      > > > > "Bill
      > > > > > Gates
      > > > > > > gives billions to charity!!!" you tell me:
      > > > > where
      > > > > > do we
      > > > > > > draw the line here between selfish and
      > > > > selfless
      > > > > > > motivation? In other words, Bill Gates could
      > > > > have
      > > > > > > easily donated the money anonymously [or
      > > > > through
      > > > > > third
      > > > > > > parties]. That way the poor get the dough
      > > > but
      > > > > he
      > > > > > gets
      > > > > > > absolutely no credit for giving it to them.
      > > > > He,
      > > > > > > however, prefers the banner headline way.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Much of what we call "selfless" behavoir is,
      > > > > more
      > > > > > > realistically, an admixture of how we and
      > > > > others
      > > > > > BOTH
      > > > > > > benefit from these transactions. We get to
      > > > > feel
      > > > > > "good"
      > > >
      > > === message truncated ===
      > >
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
      > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
    • louise
      I m rather upset at present, Eduard, but I ll try to respond. This reminds me of Shakespeare s play, The Tempest. It must be the spirit, Ariel, I think, who
      Message 156 of 156 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm rather upset at present, Eduard, but I'll try to respond.
        This reminds me of Shakespeare's play, The Tempest. It must be the
        spirit, Ariel, I think, who says:
        "We are such stuff as dreams are made on,
        And our little life is rounded with a sleep."
        Louise.

        -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > Louise,
        >
        > I suppose that a lot is said of old Lewis Carroll. What is
        interesting however, is his description of Alice in Wonderland.
        Specifically that of it being a dream. Just as Alice fell into the
        rabbit hole, so too do we fall* into a dream.
        >
        > eduard
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: louise
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:41 AM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Dreams
        >
        >
        > Hello Eduard.
        > Did you know that Lewis Carroll was supposedly 'hebephrenic'?
        Am I
        > allowed to say that, oh you who know everything? ;¬)
        > love from Louise.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.