The Ideal Religion

[Amanda]

I know I'm not articulating this really well right now, but I find it curious even in myself how reflective of these times my own ways of thinking are influenced. So to answer Freedays question how is Christianity failing to adapt? Christianity is failing to speak to this world in the ways it thinks, and is struggling to adapt. OM's efforts in her congregation are a great example of the middle making efforts to find that new way to speak to the questions that are a part of the world we live in today.

Antlerman, excellent post... as always.

 

I think fundamentalism is failing to adapt because of its rigid stand! I know my answer is like the question, however... the rigidity of their literal interpretations does not accommodate logical findings we are constantly exposing through science. Hence, they persist in claiming as their foundations that the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, Noah's ark, snakes talk, evolution is evil, abiogensis is impossible, homosexuality is bad, premarital sex is a sin, Harry Potter is promoting evil sorcery, etc.... and then the religous right want to make their interpretations law!

 

Now... what I have said and no one listens... is that the predominant reason they are rigid, is their belief in a literal hell! Whatever they think could possibly bring them even close to that eternity, they will refuse to go there with every fiber of their being. Don't you know that all of us that believe in the above are going to that literal hell? ---

 

We know how passionate "Christians" are about their beliefs, and how they must convert us so that we do not go to hell, right? Maybe that's why some like to send us to hell, call us names, are disrespectful to us, because they are further trying to convince themselves that they are the righteous ones who believe what is necessary to end on the streets of gold and out of the torturous flames of hell. A lot of these people, to challenge their beliefs is not only to jepardize an eternity in paradise and to end in hell, but to be estranged from their fundamentalist family amd friends! Wow... what a sad predicament... and as I've said, IMO, that is hell.

[Antlerman]

Now... what I have said and no one listens... is that the predominant reason they are rigid, is their belief in a literal hell! Whatever they think could possibly bring them even close to that eternity, they will refuse to go there with every fiber of their being. Don't you know that all of us that believe in the above are going to that literal hell? ---

 

We know how passionate "Christians" are about their beliefs, and how they must convert us so that we do not go to hell, right? Maybe that's why some like to send us to hell, call us names, are disrespectful to us, because they are further trying to convince themselves that they are the righteous ones who believe what is necessary to end on the streets of gold and out of the torturous flames of hell. A lot of these people, to challenge their beliefs is not only to jepardize an eternity in paradise and to end in hell, but to be estranged from their fundamentalist family amd friends! Wow... what a sad predicament... and as I've said, IMO, that is hell.

Not much time to post a response, but briefly I think that the belief in hell doesn't keep them rigid, but that belief in hell is symptomatic of their own fears of facing the unknown. Hell is created by them to prevent them from going somewhere where uncertaintly will challenge their sense of security and consequently in their minds, their ability to be happy. Their faith is weak and they need hell to keep them from their own fear of loosing it. Pity. That is hell.

[Ziggy]

 

I noticed too, Robert. Good to see you back on board.

 

How are things going with your congregation right now?

 

 

Hello again OM

Well theres been alot of holidays going on so nothing has really happened in the congregation recently apart from the fact the elders agreed to let us have another set of meetings on the more controversial issues That is good news.. when it will start will probably be in September sometime

 

I'll let you know the subject matter

[Antlerman]

So you think some form of religion is a good thing for society?

Is this just because of the effect it can have on stablising society or do you mean at a much more personal/individual level - or both!

That's hard to answer. I think a religion can have benefits to it over that of a secular institution, for both the individual and a society. I think a ritualized system of mythologies and symbols can have a positive effect on the human mind/spirit if approached right. As someone else said, “A good poem allows you to have your feet on the ground and your head in the air simultaneously.” I think mythology has a transcendent quality to it that the human imagination responds to and brings us up higher within ourselves to what otherwise isn't realized operating through reason alone.

 

The down side is of course any institutionalization of a system like can posit itself as an authority in someone’s lives and people consequently become its servant, rather than the other way around. Truth needs to be free. We create that truth through our spirits.

 

Do you think its possible for that to happen without it being able to claim the 'truth'?

I think it would be fine if it claim truth. If it had no truth people would naturally not accept it. But if makes an exclusive claim on Truth (with a big T) then it is now the Institution we serve, and not a place where we find truth. Is it possible for an institution to hold truth, but not exclusive Truth? I think so. I think most people who attend main stream churches do not feel they hold the only truth, but rather see it as something that is truth for them.

 

My theory is that when the church takes their truth and make it the only correct one for all people everywhere (which of course is laughable - if it was you wouldn't have wars over it, would you?), is because its about the institution setting itself up as something more than a social servant and not knowing how to respond to changes in society in how it defines truth. They sense a loss of control and push back by claiming they are the holders of the exclusive truth, and vilify all other truths as "heresy", and of the devil.

 

I think responsive churches to the societies which created them will be the ones that survive. Therefore, I think within the next hundred or so years, evolution will weed out the ones that take the reactionary approach of the fundamentalist, unless society suddenly becomes incredibly ignorant overnight and knowledge outside the Church's control becomes suppressed again. I see that as a near impossibility, save for a nuclear or natural disaster that destroys all communication in the world outside the borders of each country. Then the fundis will shout with glee as they turn back the clocks of knoweldge to the days of the Dark Ages, and enslave the people in a world of superstions and terror.

[Soule]

two more churches that i love

 

discordianism

 

church of the subgenius

[Amanda]

Not much time to post a response, but briefly I think that the belief in hell doesn't keep them rigid, but that belief in hell is symptomatic of their own fears of facing the unknown. Hell is created by them to prevent them from going somewhere where uncertaintly will challenge their sense of security and consequently in their minds, their ability to be happy. Their faith is weak and they need hell to keep them from their own fear of loosing it. Pity. That is hell.

 

Antlerman, it seems to me, initially hell was probably gradually embellished as a way to scare people into the fold. Heck, I remember when I was 13, the pastor said that any one of us could leave church that night and get hit by a truck and die. And, did we know if we were going to hell or not? Well, I promptly walked down to the altar... ya' never know.

 

Of course they make you do it publically, as a way of making a commitment in front of the congregation. Then, with the fear of hell, they gotcha'! And yes, their faith is weak, because there are hardly any solid foundations, so the emphasis of hell is necessary to keep their blind faith mandatory. IMO, without the literal concept of hell, fundamentalism would transform much faster.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, it seems to me, initially hell was probably gradually embellished as a way to scare people into the fold. Heck, I remember when I was 13, the pastor said that any one of us could leave church that night and get hit by a truck and die. And, did we know if we were going to hell or not? Well, I promptly walked down to the altar... ya' never know.

 

Of course they make you do it publically, as a way of making a commitment in front of the congregation. Then, with the fear of hell, they gotcha'! And yes, their faith is weak, because there are hardly any solid foundations, so the emphasis of hell is necessary to keep their blind faith mandatory. IMO, without the literal concept of hell, fundamentalism would transform much faster.

Yikes. Imagine telling a child that if you don't obey your parents they will throw you out in the street where you will be eaten alive by rats. And they consider this a form a child abuse for parents to do this, yet when a pastor tells this to a 13 year old the God will do it to them, it's considered religion.

 

Yes it is very telling about the appeal of their beliefs that they have to use fear control to make and keep converts. I wonder what would really happen to their numbers if you took away the threat of hell? Want to hear a surprising answer? I actually think their numbers would increase.

[Open_Minded]

Yes it is very telling about the appeal of their beliefs that they have to use fear control to make and keep converts. I wonder what would really happen to their numbers if you took away the threat of hell? Want to hear a surprising answer? I actually think their numbers would increase.

 

By "their numbers" do you mean literalist - or non-literalist religion?

 

Or... do you think there would no longer be such a thing as literalism?

 

Well theres been alot of holidays going on so nothing has really happened in the congregation recently apart from the fact the elders agreed to let us have another set of meetings on the more controversial issues That is good news.. when it will start will probably be in September sometime

 

That's about where we're at as well. We're planning a series of 3 discussions (to happen in late September and early October) around the topic "exploring spiritual interconnectedness".

 

We intend to bring in what is happening with interfaith dialog on the synod level as well as within in other mainstream branches of Christianity.

 

Also, I'm in the process of figuring out a date that a leader from the local Wiccan circle can come in and participate in interfaith discussion. That will be some evening in September as well. So... we're just making a lot of plans right now.

 

It's always good to know that other congregations are working on these things.

[Antlerman]

Yes it is very telling about the appeal of their beliefs that they have to use fear control to make and keep converts. I wonder what would really happen to their numbers if you took away the threat of hell? Want to hear a surprising answer? I actually think their numbers would increase.

 

By "their numbers" do you mean literalist - or non-literalist religion?

 

Or... do you think there would no longer be such a thing as literalism?

I had this thought as I was typing the response and realize it raises a lot of questions. I think all in all if the threat were removed from the table, for those who are currently in those churches it would eliminate an image of the God they worship from the back of their minds (if they are those who choose to "only focus on the love" part of it) that without any doubt jars against their sense of Love on the level that "God" is supposed to represent. For them, I would think it would result in them feeling more spiritually liberated, being more free to focus on the things they find inspiring without the distraction of seeing God with a split-personality of some primitive, vengeful volcano deity.

 

For those outside the church, it would make the message far more palatable for the same reasons. As it is now you have this strange message of hope and love, peace and belonging, etc, along with mom and dad and friends being tortured by this same God. I think it’s far more a barrier to their success with people's hearts and minds than it is effective. Again to say "I choose to focus on the love", does not get rid of it for anyone. Denial is denial. That God is still a monster, despite "focusing on the love." It's only a doctrine, but this is where being dogmatic to one's beliefs come in.

 

Would they cease to be literalists, or even fundamentalists without the doctrine? Not necessarily, but even the appeal of the nostalgic, simple days, easy answers, simple choices menu of the fundamentalist would have a less negative impact on the minds and spirits of those who pine for the "good 'ole days". I think you could still have them preaching that the old ways are the best ways without needing to teach God punishes everyone with mindless torment except for a very small special elect who buy their product. Its a counter-spritual message that works against them for the bigger sales. I think everyone would benefit for them to abandon their adopting that particular fashioned doctrine.

[Amanda]

Would they cease to be literalists, or even fundamentalists without the doctrine? Not necessarily, but even the appeal of the nostalgic, simple days, easy answers, simple choices menu of the fundamentalist would have a less negative impact on the minds and spirits of those who pine for the "good 'ole days". I think you could still have them preaching that the old ways are the best ways without needing to teach God punishes everyone with mindless torment except for a very small special elect who buy their product. Its a counter-spritual message that works against them for the bigger sales. I think everyone would benefit for them to abandon their adopting that particular fashioned doctrine.

 

Hey Antlerman, so let's say the concept of a literal hell is gone... what do you think that would do to 'blind faith'? IMO, it would give people the freedom to examine doctorines without fear, allowing them to be more open minded. Yes, maybe more like Open Minded too.

[Ziggy]

So you think some form of religion is a good thing for society?

Is this just because of the effect it can have on stablising society or do you mean at a much more personal/individual level - or both!

That's hard to answer. I think a religion can have benefits to it over that of a secular institution, for both the individual and a society. I think a ritualized system of mythologies and symbols can have a positive effect on the human mind/spirit if approached right. As someone else said, “A good poem allows you to have your feet on the ground and your head in the air simultaneously.” I think mythology has a transcendent quality to it that the human imagination responds to and brings us up higher within ourselves to what otherwise isn't realized operating through reason alone.

 

The down side is of course any institutionalization of a system like can posit itself as an authority in someone’s lives and people consequently become its servant, rather than the other way around. Truth needs to be free. We create that truth through our spirits.

 

Do you think its possible for that to happen without it being able to claim the 'truth'?

I think it would be fine if it claim truth. If it had no truth people would naturally not accept it. But if makes an exclusive claim on Truth (with a big T) then it is now the Institution we serve, and not a place where we find truth. Is it possible for an institution to hold truth, but not exclusive Truth? I think so. I think most people who attend main stream churches do not feel they hold the only truth, but rather see it as something that is truth for them.

 

My theory is that when the church takes their truth and make it the only correct one for all people everywhere (which of course is laughable - if it was you wouldn't have wars over it, would you?), is because its about the institution setting itself up as something more than a social servant and not knowing how to respond to changes in society in how it defines truth. They sense a loss of control and push back by claiming they are the holders of the exclusive truth, and vilify all other truths as "heresy", and of the devil.

 

I think responsive churches to the societies which created them will be the ones that survive. Therefore, I think within the next hundred or so years, evolution will weed out the ones that take the reactionary approach of the fundamentalist, unless society suddenly becomes incredibly ignorant overnight and knowledge outside the Church's control becomes suppressed again. I see that as a near impossibility, save for a nuclear or natural disaster that destroys all communication in the world outside the borders of each country. Then the fundis will shout with glee as they turn back the clocks of knoweldge to the days of the Dark Ages, and enslave the people in a world of superstions and terror.

 

Antlerman I could not help but compare this line of thought to the thread over on General Theological discussions - Is Islam a religion of peace or hate

 

'TO' who opened that thread seems to be saying the Qu'ran is a guide for all people who believe in in some sort of God not just Musilms. And that basically everyone of any religion or non religion can get to heaven as long as they are good (need clarification on what good is)

 

Its almost as if he is pushing islam as a Universal religion that can encompass everything and everyone.

 

I know he didn't answer your questions on why the qu'ran is not corrupt or could never be corrupt but does it matter when he is saying that all you have to be is quite good and nothing else. It seems he is trying to make Islam appear like the ideal religion you are seeking responses to in this thread what do you think?

[Amanda]

Its almost as if he is pushing islam as a Universal religion that can encompass everything and everyone.

 

I know he didn't answer your questions on why the qu'ran is not corrupt or could never be corrupt but does it matter when he is saying that all you have to be is quite good and nothing else. It seems he is trying to make Islam appear like the ideal religion you are seeking responses to in this thread what do you think?

Hi Robert! I know this post was directed to Antlerman, and I always enjoy his responses. I would like to ask a couple of questions concerning your post though.

 

Can't all "religions" encompass everything and everyone, except for when it is taken to the level of fundamentalism?

 

It seems to me the Qu'ran can be corrupted too. I find it very hard to believe that it says if you become a suicide terrorist and go kill innocent people in the mall or something, that you're going to have 21 virgins when you die and get to heaven.

[DanInPA]

.......21 virgins when you die and get to heaven.

 

 

AAAACK!!!! I thought it was 72 virgins!!

 

*removes dynamite filled vest*

[Antlerman]

I think it would be fine if it claim truth. If it had no truth people would naturally not accept it. But if makes an exclusive claim on Truth (with a big T) then it is now the Institution we serve, and not a place where we find truth. Is it possible for an institution to hold truth, but not exclusive Truth? I think so. I think most people who attend main stream churches do not feel they hold the only truth, but rather see it as something that is truth for them.

 

My theory is that when the church takes their truth and make it the only correct one for all people everywhere (which of course is laughable - if it was you wouldn't have wars over it, would you?), is because its about the institution setting itself up as something more than a social servant and not knowing how to respond to changes in society in how it defines truth. They sense a loss of control and push back by claiming they are the holders of the exclusive truth, and vilify all other truths as "heresy", and of the devil.

 

I think responsive churches to the societies which created them will be the ones that survive. Therefore, I think within the next hundred or so years, evolution will weed out the ones that take the reactionary approach of the fundamentalist, unless society suddenly becomes incredibly ignorant overnight and knowledge outside the Church's control becomes suppressed again. I see that as a near impossibility, save for a nuclear or natural disaster that destroys all communication in the world outside the borders of each country. Then the fundis will shout with glee as they turn back the clocks of knoweldge to the days of the Dark Ages, and enslave the people in a world of superstions and terror.

 

Antlerman I could not help but compare this line of thought to the thread over on General Theological discussions - Is Islam a religion of peace or hate

 

'TO' who opened that thread seems to be saying the Qu'ran is a guide for all people who believe in in some sort of God not just Musilms. And that basically everyone of any religion or non religion can get to heaven as long as they are good (need clarification on what good is)

 

Its almost as if he is pushing islam as a Universal religion that can encompass everything and everyone.

 

I know he didn't answer your questions on why the qu'ran is not corrupt or could never be corrupt but does it matter when he is saying that all you have to be is quite good and nothing else. It seems he is trying to make Islam appear like the ideal religion you are seeking responses to in this thread what do you think?

As far as Islam being a viable system to speak to the modern world: No way. First of all I do not trust the genuineness of what The Omniscient says about Islam being that open minded. Everything inside me senses something off in that “generous” point of view. There’s tons of conditions attached to that. What if you choose to have multiple deities, but the end result is you live morally? Sure, right…. Have you ever known a Muslim that doesn’t judge polytheism to be against Allah? Did Mohammed tolerate it?

 

Besides, the very premise of that religion is to claim that they correct the errors of the other ones. Which I consider ironic in the extreme considering they are merely altering the stories surrounding events which themselves have been shown to be mythological in the first place. This sort of claim to exclusive truth is what disqualifies them as a contender for the modern age at the word go. Your still left with having to deny what research reveals in order to support the sacredness of the belief, rather than having a belief that is flexible enough to accept whatever is revealed. It is itself a closed system, and a closed system is invalid in a word whose knowledge is mostly influenced by an open system.

 

I haven’t really laid out what I think would be an ideal system in this thread, but I think it’s clear that it has to have an open system of knowledge at its heart, and be universally inclusive – unconditionally. I’ll try to put some more thoughts to it later.

 

But in the meantime Robert, here’s an interesting survey I took some time back that I think would be worth you and others taking if they haven’t. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html Note: for each of the 20 questions, there is a importance factor of High Medium and Low for each of the questions you should associate with the answer to the questions as it does alter what religion/philosophy you are most closest to. Mine put me at 100% Secular Humanist, 97% Universalist Unitarian, and down the list with 7th Day Adventists being dead last at 8%. I think it would be interesting to hear what yours would rate too. I think it listed Islam in their too, but it was around 48% or somthing lower like that. That in and of itself shows it ill suited to work as a univerally acceptable belief system. Sorry to them who thinks it's better that that.

[All Gods Fail]

two more churches that i love

 

discordianism

 

church of the subgenius

 

Hey, I'm an official SubG minister! (ululating) ay-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi!

 

Also, I'm Pope of the Cute Bunny™ Church, but you already knew that.

 

But seriously, I would like to see secular humanism have a shot as a spiritual philosophy. Nothing makes a fundie break out in a cold sweat faster than the words 'secular humanism', and with good reason - it puts forth the idea that being a good & moral person has nothing to do with religion and/or biblegod. They're just not needed to be a decent person and lead a good life.

 

I'd like to see humans put away religion completely, voluntarily, and see what happens. I don't know if it would make us any better, but it would at least give us one less reason to kill each other.

[Ziggy]

Its almost as if he is pushing islam as a Universal religion that can encompass everything and everyone.

 

I know he didn't answer your questions on why the qu'ran is not corrupt or could never be corrupt but does it matter when he is saying that all you have to be is quite good and nothing else. It seems he is trying to make Islam appear like the ideal religion you are seeking responses to in this thread what do you think?

Hi Robert! I know this post was directed to Antlerman, and I always enjoy his responses. I would like to ask a couple of questions concerning your post though.

 

Can't all "religions" encompass everything and everyone, except for when it is taken to the level of fundamentalism?

 

It seems to me the Qu'ran can be corrupted too. I find it very hard to believe that it says if you become a suicide terrorist and go kill innocent people in the mall or something, that you're going to have 21 virgins when you die and get to heaven.

 

Hi Amanda Jump in when ever you feel like it.. you are most welcome!

Yes you are right..but for most religions it is very hard to remove all fundamentalism and still keep the religion in tact. Hence this thread I think.

It seemed to me that all the major religions have a fundamentalist basis which make them exclusive. Even if you are liberal all religions do tend to state that theirs is the best and True way.. therefore excluding other ways

 

As with Christianity I thought this about Islam but the way TO was deriding modern islam and how he interpretted the Qu'ran was more or less saying its a free religion and more of a spritual guide open to all. I have never heard this view before and I found it intriging (sp?)

 

But as antlerman said there is doubt that his version of islam is what the average muslim would adhere to. Also the passages like the one you mentioned were never really bottomed out in his thread which he seems to have abandoned .

The Qu'ran is full of stuff like that and TO just said if you read it in context there is nothing contentious about it at all... The vigin stuff was incredible... does it actually say that ? What if you are a women suicide bomber? Do you get to be one of the virgins!?

 

I agree - the Qu'ran can be corrupted but TO seemed to suggest not Unless he comes back we cannot quiz him on his interpretation

 

Now on to Antlers survey!

 

.......21 virgins when you die and get to heaven.

 

 

AAAACK!!!! I thought it was 72 virgins!!

 

*removes dynamite filled vest*

 

...I would have thought if sex was the prize then it would better with women who knew what they were doing ! Sorry just an aside ...

[Ziggy]

 

But in the meantime Robert, here’s an interesting survey I took some time back that I think would be worth you and others taking if they haven’t. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html Note: for each of the 20 questions, there is a importance factor of High Medium and Low for each of the questions you should associate with the answer to the questions as it does alter what religion/philosophy you are most closest to. Mine put me at 100% Secular Humanist, 97% Universalist Unitarian, and down the list with 7th Day Adventists being dead last at 8%. I think it would be interesting to hear what yours would rate too. I think it listed Islam in their too, but it was around 48% or somthing lower like that. That in and of itself shows it ill suited to work as a univerally acceptable belief system. Sorry to them who thinks it's better that that.

 

Well it seems I am 100% Neo Pagan

Not knowing what that was I was pleased to find the web page provided a full description ... and its probably not a million miles away

 

My top 5 were all a bit strange / surprising

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)

2. Liberal Quakers (89%)

3. Unitarian Universalism (87%)

4. New Age (84%)

5. Mahayana Buddhism (80%)

 

Man am I confused!

 

Others

9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%)

12. Secular Humanism (63%)

26. Roman Catholic (21%)

27. Jehovah's Witness (16%)

 

 

Antlerman I agree with you on what you think about Islam... but do you not think TO was trying to portray something different? Like he was trying to make it fit into the modern world maybe like OM is doing ...? I just found that interesting maybe i'll start a new post directed at him / her

[Antlerman]

Antlerman I agree with you on what you think about Islam... but do you not think TO was trying to portray something different? Like he was trying to make it fit into the modern world maybe like OM is doing ...? I just found that interesting maybe i'll start a new post directed at him / her

Maybe I'm being atypically judgmental with him, but I didn't trust what I was hearing. It is unlikely you can claim something is 100% authoritative and absolute and remain open minded to other possibilities. As he said you have to take in the proper context, which of course would leave it more open to interpreting it to fit situations, but the problem is that we're back to one interpretation becoming the one and only correct one. You see? I would love to hear him say something to the effect that its power lays in its ability to be interpreted in many ways. But instead he speaks of "the proper context". That's a denominational reading of their own version of "the Truth".

 

Sure he may be trying to make it relevant to the modern world by making it inclusive, but frankly the only way he will be able to do that is to loosen the understanding of it from the final, authoritative word of God to man, to repecting it as an important book of sacred literature that man has written reflecting their ideas about God, one equal among many, not it's ultimate truth. To take an attitude it is the one and final word on the subject is exclusivist and does nothing but foster attitudes of having the superior religion, which of course leads to war with those who don't agree with that.

 

To me if he were to say it is one amongst many as an equal and not the superior, then that attitudes of humulity would indeed make it more relevant to a globally cosmopolitan socitey. Instead, it is still quite tribal in its narrow image of itself, and I don't buy the claim it is open. OM on the otherhand recongizes the Bible is not the perfect word of God, but TO still thinks it is.

[Amanda]

To me if he were to say it is one amongst many as an equal and not the superior, then that attitudes of humulity would indeed make it more relevant to a globally cosmopolitan socitey. Instead, it is still quite tribal in its narrow image of itself, and I don't buy the claim it is open.

 

Antlerman, don't you think, IF there were these men called Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and even take Ghandi, Mandela, King, the Dali Llama, and some highly recognizeable zen masters, that if they were able to gather together now, would they find their messages to be all that contradictory? IMO, they would be quite harmonious with each other... and astounded at all the wars done in what they promoted as peace!!!

 

(The religous leaders I have reservations about are the Popes and the fundy Christian/Islamic teachers.)

 

I like Atheism, and agreement with most of its tennants, ironically. Having said that, what do you think of Korea? It is considered an Atheist country, right? Also communist too? What do you think of the real threat of them having nuclear power now? Do we just see them as a threat because they are 'different' than us?

[Alice]

An ideal religion for me would be ....

 

an organisation that supported and advised its members through the ups and downs of life - that made available accumulated stories and wisdom to help us on our journey - that encouraged individuals and their chosen groupings to reach their full potential.

 

Members would be asked to promise to honour and respect children ...

 

It would be important to me that there were festivals and celebrations to mark new beginings and significant events in the life of the members.

 

(I'd have Antlerman run regular seminars too ... and Open_minded would always be in the coffee bar and available for conversation)

 

There would be music and art and poetry and lots of storytelling, from a mix of cultures all around the world.

 

(Oh and the coffee bar would serve only hydrogenated oil free foods with a wide selection of vegan foods ....)

 

I've recently spotted this actual religion begin to form - its called my friends and family and I guess this forum provides the coffee bar and seminar bit (without the food ... but I sometimes provide my own) The celebrations and festivals part has been a bit shaky without the structure of our previous religion but they are begining to take place and the inspirational stories and art is starting to make an appearance, in a kind of show and tell way -

[Open_Minded]

An ideal religion for me would be ....

 

an organisation that supported and advised its members through the ups and downs of life - that made available accumulated stories and wisdom to help us on our journey - that encouraged individuals and their chosen groupings to reach their full potential.

 

Members would be asked to promise to honour and respect children ...

 

It would be important to me that there were festivals and celebrations to mark new beginings and significant events in the life of the members.

 

(I'd have Antlerman run regular seminars too ... and Open_minded would always be in the coffee bar and available for conversation)

 

There would be music and art and poetry and lots of storytelling, from a mix of cultures all around the world.

 

(Oh and the coffee bar would serve only hydrogenated oil free foods with a wide selection of vegan foods ....)

 

I've recently spotted this actual religion begin to form - its called my friends and family and I guess this forum provides the coffee bar and seminar bit (without the food ... but I sometimes provide my own) The celebrations and festivals part has been a bit shaky without the structure of our previous religion but they are begining to take place and the inspirational stories and art is starting to make an appearance, in a kind of show and tell way -

 

Sounds like a great religion to me, Alice. And thanks for the mention.

 

Speaking of being available for conversation ... how has your health been doing these days?

[Alice]

 

Sounds like a great religion to me, Alice. And thanks for the mention.

 

Speaking of being available for conversation ... how has your health been doing these days?

 

* pulls up chair at the table Open_Minded is seated at, having first fetched cup of green tea, and makes ready to answer health enquiry, then thinks better of derailing Antlerman's thread (doesn't want to be asked to leave seminar) so says instead ...*

 

I'll pm you!

[Open_Minded]

 

Sounds like a great religion to me, Alice. And thanks for the mention.

 

Speaking of being available for conversation ... how has your health been doing these days?

 

* pulls up chair at the table Open_Minded is seated at, having first fetched cup of green tea, and makes ready to answer health enquiry, then thinks better of derailing Antlerman's thread (doesn't want to be asked to leave seminar) so says instead ...*

 

I'll pm you!

 

 

Writes on a napkin - "Oh I understand, just send me a PM. BTW ---- isn't this seminar great?" and turns her attention back to Antlerman and the on-going discussion.