My sister is like everyone else. You can't tell her anything.

She knows it all.

She claims to have studied this stuff in great depth and knows what's "healthy" and "not healthy".

Although to be quite honest about it she doesn't look "healthy" to me. She looks like an anorexic zombie to me. She claims that she's adding decades to her lifespan, but in truth I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she dies before her carnivorous brother (that'd be me )

Not that I'm hoping for that of course.

I wouldn't say, "I told her so", because I haven't even suggested as much. I have no clue what's healthy and what isn't.

I just eat meat because it's easy, and I enjoy it. And the fast-food drive-thru windows make it even easier.

But I confess that I did enjoy the days when I grew my own food and ate mostly veggies. I do LIKE veggies. I love salads and I eat them all the time. I like things like broccoli, and spinach, and zucchini, etc. In fact I like just about every vegetable I can think of.

Damn, I'm getting hungry now.

I do LOVE TO EAT.

For all intents and purposes I should look like a led zeppelin, I over-eat all the time, but I never gain any weight. Don't know why that is. Just my natural genetic metabolism I guess.

I'm really lucky in that way, because as much as I eat I should truly be enormous! But I'm not. I have a body that looks like it belongs to someone who exercises all the time and eats a very respectable diet. It's amazing, because I don't do either.

Why does an Unbeliever even _need_ a god? One can always find a higher purpose for one's life in seeking to make the world a better place and by bequeathing one's ancestors a world that is freer from pain and suffering.

IMHO, that's closer to the sublime than anything written in the Bible, with its regimented authoritarianism and frequent bloodletting. And that humanity is its own Alpha and Omega, that one can find, in one's fellowship with her fellow humans, an inner peace and lovingkindness missing from the worship of that one can never touch and truly know.

Never in the bible was it similarly written, "Any man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind; and therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls- it tolls for thee."

-Kerry O.

One can always find a higher purpose for one's life in seeking to make the world a better place and by bequeathing one's ancestors a world that is freer from pain and suffering.



-Kerry O.



Thankyou Kerry, I so appreciate your quiet logic!

Shalom Red.

No i do not think that it is condoned but hard not to eat food that are shot up with hormones to say make chickens and beef grow faster and bigger. Niether do i believe the genetic engineering of vegetables to make them bigger and disease resistantis condoned either. This in some writings is what was going on at the Tower of babel when the language was one.

In many parts of the country thier are 100k and larger feedlots where animals hardly move. then we wonder why we get fatter. Growth Hormones are condoned by our govt. and some studies say this is why children our developing at a very young age. the hormones are being passed on to them. This is corp. greed. We see outbreaks of Samenela from veggies. why? IMO its the science thats wrong trying to play dr jekle and Mr. hyde. I can not remember the last time i went hunting. I might start again if for food. The elk here in Oregon I have ate from friends is really good and probally better for ya than the beef in thhe stores.

The trout is good and I love trout.the clean and unclean animals to eat has alot of validarity but the govt. refuses those outcomes. pork has shown is a cancer causer big time but we never see a report. Not good for Big Business to say such a thing. drug executives need us to be sick.. Blessings..Miles

Science provides information, it is humans that determine what to do with that information so it is humans that makes science the hero or a villian.

Science can be blamed for the ills such as you have indicated, but science is also the field from which we discover how humans have abused their knowledge.

Similarly, religions disseminat information, it is humans that determine what to do with that information, so it is humans that make religion a hero or a villian.

Religion can be blamed as the source of many social ills, but we can't deny that the religiously inclined are often among the first to respond legitamately when natural catastrophy strikes.

But the scales, in my opinion, do not balance relative to those two situations, because it is religion that tends to prohibit people from critically assessing political, social, and scientific, information, and the results are harmful social ills, negative environmental impacts, and political and cultural injustice.

I think a balance can be struck between the religiously inclined and those who are not so inclined, but there must be a strength of character, on both sides, that is not threatened by the personal religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others. There must be a consistently demonstrated behavior on both sides that leads to trust of the other. That behavior can only stem from putting aside beliefs having to do with religion, when dealing with social issues in which political and cultural diversity must be considered on a wider scale of human ethics. (mmm a philisophical rant - do I delete or do I ... Post Reply

I agree with you assessment here Di.

And I think this is especially true when speaking of "religion" rather than my "spirituality". Because those two term are indeed significantly different concepts.

"Religion", especially in the western world, has been so tightly bound to the "Abrahamic Picture" of a personified "godhead" that the idea has truly become political. In other words, these people view their "God" as the ultimate "president" or "King" that resides over humanity, and they view their doctrine as "His Word", or "His directives and commandments".

Well, duh? That's POLITICAL. It's nothing more than a governmental system with an imaginary "president", "king" or "dictator".

So western religion is indeed nothing more than politics based on an imaginary dictator.



No balance can ever be struck with religious zealots who refuse to consider anything less than total obedience of their imaginary "dictator".

That is nothing more than politics gone berserk. Such religious zealots are beyond compromise because the have become totally convinced that their imaginary dictator is real, and that the doctrine of their choice (and of their interpretation) must be honored and obeyed as the final "word" of their imaginary dictator.

That's nothing more than politic gone insane, IMHO.

And there's no hope to ever reason with such radical extremists who have fallen into that blackhole of "blind faith".

There appears to be no way to even get them to "see" beyond the horizon of the blackhole they have fallen into.

So trying to strike a 'balance' with such people is as futile as attempting to escape from a blackhole.

~~~~~~~~~

The concept of spirituality in general is a far more interesting concept. It does not require a belief in any supreme imaginary dictator or any specific dogma that represents the wants, needs, and desires of such an imaginary dictator.

Spirituality, in and of itself, is also a "scientific question", contrary to what many atheists claim. There are spiritual questions, that parallel unanswered scientific questions. Moreover the deepest scientific question aren't all that different from spiritual questions.

For example:

The most well-accepted hypothesis of science to date for the source of our existence is the "Inflationary Hot Big Bang" theory. Yes, this theory has basically been observationally proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.

None the less, the theory itself is incomplete, in many ways.

For example, this theory assumes (actually predicts) that the Big Bang itself began from a quantum fluxuation.

Well, that in turn, predicts that quantum fields and far more importantly "quantum RULES" were in place even before our universe sprang into being.

In other words, are best scientific theories to date, presume that information had existed in some form even before our physical universe sprang into being.

What is the source, and nature of that structure?

That is both a "scientific question", and a "spiritual question".

Because whatever the answer is, it may well be the "spiritual essence of reality" that spiritualist seek to know.

Moreover, - And I don't want to get carried away deep into physics, so I'll try to make this superficially short:

Consider the following: (kind of in bullet form)

Physical "stuff" is created from this unknowable quantum field information.

We call this stuff "atoms" simply because they seem to be the smallest structures of physical importance in how our world evolves and becomes what it is today.

So why is it that these "atoms" that came from this primordial information just happen to have the properties to be able to form such elaborate structures that can indeed evolved into such complex machines. And that applies to everything from stars to humans.

However, then we come to the ultimate spiritual question as well as the ultimate scientific question.

The answer to THIS QUESTION is both spiritual and scientific!

What is it that is actually experiencing the form of a biological robot that we call a "human being"?


Is it nothing more than the "robot itself" that experiences this form?

How could the "robot" experience anything in a sentient way if its sole essence is nothing more than a combination of a bunch of non-sentient "stuff" that we call "atoms". But those atoms themselves do not "experience" sentience. So why should a "robot" that is constructed from them have the ability to "experience" sentience?

I fully understand that many scientists, (especially biologists and geneticists) wave this question off by simply using an artificial term - "Emergent property".

Well, that may satisfy some people but I personally do not find it the least bit satisfying. All they are basically saying is this, "Why shouldn't a robot that is made entirely from non-sentient stuff not be able to experience anything in a sentient way?"

How can they not see the significance of the problem here?

If there exist something that can experience this existence, then that something cannot be the non-sentient "stuff" that it appears to be made of. On the contrary it's ultimate essence must be something in addition to that.

Which brings us full-circle to the original question of where the 'stuff' came from in the first place.

Well, the 'stuff' came from this mystical "quantum field information".

I call it "mystical" because it certainly is a mystery even to science. Even scientists want to know the mysteries of the quantum field.

Well, for some people (in particular for Eastern Mystics), they say that we are the 'mind' that is this 'quantum field'. That is our "true essence".

That is all that exists. From it, everything that we see around us springs, including our own experience of a physical body.

However, the presence, the sentience, the actual "experience" or "perceiver", is this cosmic mind (or maybe I should say, ultra cosmic mind, since it's truly even "beyond" the cosmos. It is the informational source and intelligent structure that gives rise to the very existence of what we call the "physical world".

But ultimately, our truest essence is that we are that information (i.e. we are that mind). We are the very thing that is creating the illusions that we call "physical". And that is why we can experience it. Because we are not the "physical" but rather we are the non-physical mind that is creating the physical.

Tat t'vam asi. "You are that".

This is actually a quite "scientific" view of "spirituality", that is totally in harmony with everything that we currently scientifically know.

Moreover, there is no political element to it.

No supposed imaginary central dictator. We are all facets of the "God Consciousness" if we wish to put it in terms of the word "God".

Although that very word, especially when Capitalized, bring back the nightmares of religious political bigotries and doctrines that claim to be the LAWS of the supreme "God Consciousness".

At, unfortunately, that's what scares so many people away from even bothering to consider a spiritual element to life.

They are so in fear of radical religious extremists who will start running around screaming, "You must obey God, and his word is in this Book that I will personally interpret for you!

That's when spirituality becomes a blackhole of hopelessness. When spirituality becomes "religion". Especially when it becomes a dogmatic religion that preaches religious bigotry and claims to have the precise laws of what the ultimate "Cosmic mind" wants from us lest he cast us into eternal damnation.

The true irony there is that in order for a "god" to even be able to cast someone into "eternal damnation" would require that the person being cast into damnation can exist separate from God!

But clearly that can't work in this "mystical picture" because we have just concluded that our very existence is a facet of the ultimate cosmic mind, and that ultimate cosmic mind obviously can't be casting itself into eternal damnation.

Wow, talk about a ramble.

Ok, I'm done. I just wanted to put this out there for whatever it might be worth.

IF we are all part of Gods consciousness


is our only purpose then to experience life and die, the murderer the same as the adulterer the same as the nun the same as jesus the same as judas?


are we all bound to the same end regardless of our choices in life?,,,interesting

I would tell you what you are and what your purpose is but you probably would not believe it anyway.

lol,,ok

Great post Abracadabra!!




I just want to say:

"In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was God."

I totally agree!

In this sense there are some spiritual truths mixed in among the biblical doctrines.

Unfortunately, once you begin to show this fact, fundamental religious extremists start taking that to support every single verbatim word in the entire biblical cannon.

And of course, that approach become absurd real quick.

The mystics have considered these questions deeply, and they have indeed come up with equally deep answers.

In answer to your first concern, "Is our only purpose to experience life?"

Yes. That's correct. In fact, isn't the only purpose of life no matter what? Even if it's everlasting life in some supposed paradise?

Wouldn't the ultimate purpose simply be to experience the paradise? What other purpose could their possibly be?

But then you say "and die?". But wait a minute, we're not talking about an atheistic death here. We're talking about a spiritual existence, therefore the very concept of "death" is an invalid concept.

Suppose you go to a play and you watch the murderer and the victim. The murderer kills the victim during the play. But after the play is over you congratulate both the murderer and the victim on their superb acting roles.

How can you do that? Because the victim didn't really die, they only appeared to have died in the play.

Well, if spirit is our true essence then life is like a play and even though you can be taken out of the play, you can never be taken out of existence.

So what appears to be "murder" in life, is not "murder" in the spiritual domain. Just like "murder" in a play does not equate to "murder" in real life.

You can't "murder" a spirit. It's simply not possible.

Does this mean that it's then ok to go around killing physical bodies?

Well, ok by WHO?

That's the real question!

Is it ok by YOU?

If not, then it's no ok by YOU.

Why do you need to bring in an ultimate supreme authority to decide what is "absolutely" ok, or not ok?

Just stick with what you believe to be ok or not ok, and go by that.

That's your ROLE in the play of life.

~~~~~~~~

When you speak about things like adultery, what's that? That's nothing more than someone breaking a promise they made to someone else.

Well is that ok?

Again, ok by WHO?

Clearly it's not ok by the person who is being lied to and taken advantage of.

But maybe it's partly their fault for putting so much dependency and expectations on someone else in the first place?

It's part of the play.

If everything when perfectly according to plan and there was never any "drama" what kind of a play would life be?

Well, one thing for sure it wouldn't be a "Drama!"

Without the drama and risk of things going wrong it could potentially be a play that is so utterly boring that no one would even be interested in playing in it or watching it.

How many movies have you watched that had no drama in them at all?

And found them to be interesting and enjoyable too?

Drama is a necessary part of life. It's the spice of life.

In fact, if you moved on to a perfect paradise that had absolutely no drama at all, you'd be totally bored to death.

So that's the idea.

Why punished the actors with everlasting punishment for their performance in a single play?

It's just not a necessary concept in a truly spiritual philosophy.

Death is necessarily ultimately meaningless in any true spiritual philosophy.

However, LIFE, is NOT meaningless, and this is what gives death the "illusion" of being meaningful.

In short, don't try to use spiritual philosophies to determine your moral values.

Just live by your own innate moral values in the recognition that everything that exists is ultimately the same ultimate spirit as YOU.

From that perspective you would have no desire to "kill" anyone and you'll be an actor or actress in the play that strives for love, peace, and goodwill toward men.

That's the bottom line right there.

There's no need to create "The Ultimate Supreme Judge" who will cast the villains into eternal damnation, just in the hope of deterring that type of behavior. Evidently that kind of deterrence doesn't work very well anyway.

So why not just spread the love of "All is God" and all "All are Spirit", and recognize that there will always be actors who do not "get it".

That's part of the drama in life that the "God Conscious" chose to deal into the mix. Otherwise it would be part of the mix. For if it didn't come from the supreme consciousness, from whence could it have come?

The bottom line is a choice between existence or not.

To be or not to be.

Yes, our purpose is to exist. What greater purpose is there? Well we can also create universes and environments for the purpose of the incubation of all manner of life forms to grow and to express the divine intelligence that we are.

We are the universe.

even the children in the nursery are EXISTING,, what is the purpose of LIVING though if differences in behavior and values are to count for nothing but what it means in our own isolated existence?

Differences in behaviour and values are to count for nothing, but what it means in our own isolated existence...

yes.


They do count for nothing, but how YOU experience them....although you have been taught to believe in a higher power who decides for you what was accountable and what wasn't.

Seriously, your values impact on my physical existance, as we share the same common address...planet earth...however your value structure does not impact on how I get about in my world...you have your godlike entity...I don't.


I know you have used the extreme end of the value structure as an example...it's all the same to me...without a 'just you wait...you'll get yours when god gets a hold of you...' mindset.


I find it fascinating that those who do not adhere to any external godhead ...(atheist)can readily acknowledge the basic human societal similarities (of religious motivated people)...ie an abhorrence towards violence and intentional harm...and yet, those who are fervent in their external godhead belief deny any possible similarity between an atheist and a religious motivated person.

people that are very religious are a bit warped in their thinking as that if does not glorify god, it is bad... i'm not sure why they think this way, but it is one of the major faults in religion... by their thinking, because i am an atheist, i am not good, i cannot be good because i do not glorify god. this mentality has held back religions for years,along with science and general free thinking. Religious people say all the time that god wants everyone to be a free thinker, but with the hypocrisy of the people of religion, most cannot see past their page in the bible...

"If everyone had the same point of view there would only be the one."

jeanniebean~~11 11:45

Differences in behavior and values are what cause us to seek separation from each other, which in turn is the reason the universe expands.

I find broad sweeping generalizions in general to be fascinating. Particularly, as a christian, I find the view of some atheists that worshipping God somehow means I have no self accountability or not as much as they do, to be as fascinatingly condescending as Im sure they find those insisting they are not 'right' if not accepting God to be.

I know plenty of wonderful atheists and plenty of horrid christians. The label doesnt create the character of the person.

This is not a broad sweeping generalisation...it's specific...to you...and I...and all that I have read of you, and your defence of your belief...in all it's structures, social, and religious...

there's nothing sweeping about it.


whenever the going gets tough in a thread....your core christian beliefs rise to the fore....and they create a seperation..(elevation?)...or rather perceived elevation/seperation..

really...go back and read your old posts...

and to be equitable...atheistic poncing about is just as prevalent, on my part.

I am not here to strip you, criticise in a condemning manner...merely to point out the obvious.

I totally agree with this point of view.

However, it must be tempered with the realization that not all religious people who are passionate about their external godhead belief, necessarily deny any possibly similarity between an atheist and a religious motivated person.

That view is, unfortunately, the view that is put forth by organized religious proselytizers, independent "Paper Popes", and basically religious fundamentalists.

It is true that many people who consider themselves to be "Christians" are not truly prepared to judge non-Christians, and non-believers of an external godhead so harshly.



I truly recognize this about you MsHarmony.

I truly do. And I find it highly admirable.

You have a faith that you would like to support, and you do so because to you it's a "Beautiful Belief".

And that's cool.

In fact, it's a terrible shame that the hardcore religious fundamentalists only serve to cause your beliefs misery by their constant accusing of other people to be "unrighteous" or "unwilling" to accept "God" simply because they won't accept the Hebrew faith.

That's truly sad.

You get caught in horrible crossfire between atheists (or non-Christian spiritualists), and the hardcore fundamentalists who are prepared to renounce all non-believers of the "Christian view" as being unwilling to embrace "god".

It's a sad situation.

In all honesty MsHarmony, when I was Christian and I was attempting to understand the Bible the "Christians" were some of my greatest "opposition".

The reason being, that in order to try to "salvage" the stories, I felt a need to start interpreting things in a drastically different manner than most "Christian Fundamentalists" will accept.

They basically demand that the entire biblical cannon must stand a "Whole" and also be "infallible" as the "Word of God without exception.

They just weren't willing to give much leeway. So I felt that I had no choice but to renounce the whole religion. It can't be made to work in a strict verbatim sense.

In fact, it is that strict verbatim sense that causes the fundamentalists to believe that "non-believers" cannot possibly be "righteous", because those kinds of sentiments are indeed within the actual biblical text in a verbatim sense.

So unfortunately, to "keep the faith" in that specific "religion", it's pretty difficult to disagree with the Fundamentalists, because if you do that too openly, even the Fundies will "turn on you" and demand that even you aren't a "True Christian" unless you support their views, and of course they'll be standing there with the Bible in hand ready to spoon-feed you their interpretations of specific verses and they won't take "no" for an answer.

That's a shame, but it is indeed a "fundamental" part of the religion (no pun intended, but it sure fits!)

Fundamentalists are indeed a "fundamental" part of the religion, at least in a social sense.

Renounce them as "Paper Popes", and they start screaming bloody murder in the name of "God" and "Jesus Christ the Almighty".

That's just the cold hard truth of how the religion itself has evolved over the course of history.