not1not2 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 P.S.-in other words, its non-duaism in a deistic form. It's mainly based off of Upanishadic literature and was largely popularized by Shankara. Interestingly, the popularization of this philosophy in India happened to be largely responsible for the decline of Buddhism there. Sorry to use the term conciousness. I mean it to be defined as the receiving/interpreting aspect of subjective cognizance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTB, speaking for myself, you are more than welcome here. You are also entitled to your own opinions. Not all members have reached the same conclusions. Some are Buddhists, some are deists, some are a lot of other "ists" or have chosen other "isms." That said, you do come across to me as if you are trying to sell a new line of thinking, which feels an awful lot like some form of religion. Notice how the quote at the bottom informs us that you have found something that you wish to share. We who have left religion are just not interested in someone selling us something else. If we want to believe something else, fine, we believe it but we don't push it. You will not find the Buddhists here highlighting the Four Noble Truths, nor do you find the Wiccans trading recipes for love potions. Again, your posts oftentimes just "feel" to me as if you are trying to offer us something rather than just your opinion. Where are the ones now that supported me when I was rejecting the 'faith' by their standards? It seems that if I don't play the literalist view when rejecting christianity, I am not part of this community any longer. Is there a certain way that one has to reject christianity before being welcomed? Aren't the ones that reject christianity by its literal interpretation preaching their opinions also? I apologize if it appears as preaching. I have just found something that I thought I would share with the people that helped me the most in my time of need when I came here almost 2 years ago. I probably wouldn't have believed me either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Okay...maybe I'm a little dim, but I really don't understand how I am supposed to state my opinion in a way that would be acceptable. How many times, myself included when speaking about christians, do we say "I don't understand how they can actually believe that!"? I just want understanding in order to, well, understand. Now, when someone posts something like that and I say, "maybe this is what it means or that is what it means?" Is that going to appear as preaching? My understanding is not a religion. It's a philosophy that incorporates all the major theologies. I just wanted to share, not sell, in the hopes that someone may find some use for it if the need be there while trying to break the mind-set that has been instilled in them by literalist christianity. If someone has already been there and done that, then okay. But, if someone is helped by knowing that they don't have to reject the words that have meaning in order to leave that mind-set, then wonderful. So, how do I go about stating what I think without it being seen as preaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I was welcomed by everyone here and now I sense that not being the case. Well, I'm not leaving unless I'm forced. At a guess, you could well be getting some of the fallout of the Ssel Effect... I've noticed that I'm more likely to be sarky about the whole "Bible being nothing more than metaphor" idea now than I was a few months ago, and that could be happening with others here as well. (that's mainly due to the rather exessive importance Ssel has put on it's message and the whole "I'm right and you just don't understand" attitude he has... now that he's finally admitted he's a Christian, it explains everything)Anyway, now that my emotional outburst is over with, I'll go see who else I can alienate. Go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Anyway, now that my emotional outburst is over with, I'll go see who else I can alienate. Go for it! No?...Well how about: Allrighty then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTL and Amanda, I owe you guys an apology. After re-reading the rules for the Lion's Den, I realized that you all are well within your right to preach, give sermons, etc. It says that even "aggressive" evangelism will be tolerated. So, being that I don't like being evanglized too, even though I like the two of you wonderful gals, I'll be staying out of this area altogether. On the other hand, the rules only state what the Forum will tolerate... since it warns about heated responses, I guess the Members don't have to tolerate it... Or in other words, people want to preach? Then you're gonna get burnt for it. But what's the difference between preaching and just giving your view? Maybe it's just as simple as indicating that you might be wrong? Could it be that it's the only real difference between them? Could it be that saying "yeah, I might be wrong about this, but this is what I think" is the important part? Could it be that this is all bloody nonsense and posting it is a waste of bandwidth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTL and Amanda, I owe you guys an apology. After re-reading the rules for the Lion's Den, I realized that you all are well within your right to preach, give sermons, etc. It says that even "aggressive" evangelism will be tolerated. So, being that I don't like being evanglized too, even though I like the two of you wonderful gals, I'll be staying out of this area altogether. Edit: NBBTL...you haven't alienated anyone. CT is right, for me right now, even hearing the bible in a metaphorical sense is leaving a bad-taste in my mouth. There are people who don't mind and enjoy your posts, please don't leave because of me. That's okay Serenity, no need to apologize. I really don't want to preach, just to share. Open_Minded is an excellent example of how to get a liberal christian point across. He uses things such as "to me" and I read it this way because, he isn't making statements telling us how to be forgiving, he's not defending someone who isn't treating others well, see what I mean. He is able to discuss his views but he isn't causing dissent or preaching. You guys do that too, but right now, it doesn't seem like that. Yeah, I like the way he thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 My understanding is not a religion. It's a philosophy that incorporates all the major theologies. What's the difference? Objectivism is not a religion either, but it's still a cult. I just wanted to share, not sell, in the hopes that someone may find some use for it if the need be there while trying to break the mind-set that has been instilled in them by literalist christianity Again, what's the difference? Share/sell. It's the same words xtians, JWs, et al use to show us a better way. To show us the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTL and Amanda, I owe you guys an apology. After re-reading the rules for the Lion's Den, I realized that you all are well within your right to preach, give sermons, etc. It says that even "aggressive" evangelism will be tolerated. So, being that I don't like being evanglized too, even though I like the two of you wonderful gals, I'll be staying out of this area altogether. On the other hand, the rules only state what the Forum will tolerate... since it warns about heated responses, I guess the Members don't have to tolerate it... Or in other words, people want to preach? Then you're gonna get burnt for it. But what's the difference between preaching and just giving your view? Maybe it's just as simple as indicating that you might be wrong? Could it be that it's the only real difference between them? Could it be that saying "yeah, I might be wrong about this, but this is what I think" is the important part? Could it be that this is all bloody nonsense and posting it is a waste of bandwidth? Well, that makes sense. And, easy to do. Maybe I did wander away from doing that...oops. And CT? Stop wasting bandwidth! My understanding is not a religion. It's a philosophy that incorporates all the major theologies. What's the difference? Objectivism is not a religion either, but it's still a cult. And rejectivism isn't? hehehehehe I just wanted to share, not sell, in the hopes that someone may find some use for it if the need be there while trying to break the mind-set that has been instilled in them by literalist christianity Again, what's the difference? Share/sell. It's the same words xtians, JWs, et al use to show us a better way. To show us the truth. Okay...okay, I got ya already! I can't show you anything you don't want to see. See? So, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTB, you haven't alienated me yet. Why's that? I'm not worthy to be in conflict with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 NBBTB, you haven't alienated me yet. Why's that? I'm not worthy to be in conflict with you? Bow before the power of my worthiness! Ha! That just felt sooooo wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What's the difference? Objectivism is not a religion either, but it's still a cult. And rejectivism isn't? hehehehehe Objectivism is a philosophy propagated by Ayn Rand. Rejection of it and other isms does not a cult make. Okay...okay, I got ya already! I can't show you anything you don't want to see. See? So, To be fair, I haven't told you to stop doing what you are doing. I was responding to your post in which you complained that you were not being treated with full acceptance. I was explaining the reason why as it occurs to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What's the difference? Objectivism is not a religion either, but it's still a cult. And rejectivism isn't? hehehehehe Objectivism is a philosophy propagated by Ayn Rand. Rejection of it and other isms does not a cult make. Okay...okay, I got ya already! I can't show you anything you don't want to see. See? So, To be fair, I haven't told you to stop doing what you are doing. I was responding to your post in which you complained that you were not being treated with full acceptance. I was explaining the reason why as it occurs to me. Are you sure about rejectivism not being a cult? I know what Objectivism is and I just made up rejectivism. I know what you are saying, but are you telling me that you don't live by any philosophy? Do you get up in the morning and go about your day with what you believe to be true in your mind? How can one function with no philosophy? If what I believe to be true is a cult then yours is also. I see some truth in all the philosophies I'm familiar with. I don't adhere to just any one in particular (that I know of). Of course, someone could have understood what I understand now thousands of years ago and wrote about it. Would that make me a cultist because I live my life the way someone else did? I am not choosing one group (ism) over another. Maybe that makes me belonging to the cult of humanity? Oh, and thank you for responding to me. I really do appreciate it. And when I'm challenged, I learn a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Cool, I want to join the new cult Rejectivism... better Google it first so it's not taken already... Could it be related to Rejective Art, which is Minimalism. So this Rejectivism is in philosophy that refuse to make things complicated, but want it simple and fundamental. Or maybe the idea should be that a Rejectivist definitely rejects everything that everyone says all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Cool, I want to join the new cult Rejectivism... better Google it first so it's not taken already... Could it be related to Rejective Art, which is Minimalism. So this Rejectivism is in philosophy that refuse to make things complicated, but want it simple and fundamental. Or maybe the idea should be that a Rejectivist definitely rejects everything that everyone says all the time. Actually, rejecting what everyone says all the time is a great philosophy to live by IMO. Respect their views but know that they are usually lies. Just a story created by the traveler through their lives. Because if one understands that their story is just a story as is everyone else, then forgiveness can occur. Edited to remove a comment that may be taken as offensive. It was directed at the comment Cerise made about me being the forgiveness police. I don't want to offend anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Or maybe the idea should be that a Rejectivist definitely rejects everything that everyone says all the time. As a True Rejectivist I reject your definition of rejectivism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 So can we agree on rejecting the rejectivism or do we reject that too, which means that we agree after all? HA! The ultimate paradox of rejectivism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I'm not outlining my opinion on forgiveness again. I've already done that many many times before. That story has been written to death. Although I find it quite mystifying how most people unconditionally accept as a given "truth" that forgiveness is a balm that is not only healing but required for each and every offense that peppers the earth, lest you bear for the brunt of your days the horrfying label of "bitter, rage-filled cunt". I also notice that it is women who are more often then not required to forgive for their own good. Remember, nice girls don't get angry. It conflicts with their Victorian domestic angel image and disrupts the happy household. God forbid you hold an "unhealthy" disgust for injustice and its perpetrators. Then you might gain enough power to actually stop it from happening again, and we can't have that. Forgiveness is a story notblinded, so why are you acting as if it's a Truth instead of more lies to be sorted through and respected at a distance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I'm not outlining my opinion on forgiveness again. I've already done that many many times before. That story has been written to death. Although I find it quite mystifying how most people unconditionally accept as a given "truth" that forgiveness is a balm that is not only healing but required for each and every offense that peppers the earth, lest you bear for the brunt of your days the horrfying label of "bitter, rage-filled cunt". I also notice that it is women who are more often then not required to forgive for their own good. Remember, nice girls don't get angry. It conflicts with their Victorian domestic angel image and disrupts the happy household. God forbid you hold an "unhealthy" disgust for injustice and its perpetrators. Then you might gain enough power to actually stop it from happening again, and we can't have that. Forgiveness is a story notblinded, so why are you acting as if it's a Truth instead of more lies to be sorted through and respected at a distance? I edited my last post Cerise because I remembered about you. I can't say I understand where you are coming from because I can't. Yes, things have happened to me but not what happened to you. I can't say anything that will help me get across what I want to say. I can try and try but I just can't. So, please accept my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I'm not outlining my opinion on forgiveness again. I've already done that many many times before. That story has been written to death. Although I find it quite mystifying how most people unconditionally accept as a given "truth" that forgiveness is a balm that is not only healing but required for each and every offense that peppers the earth, lest you bear for the brunt of your days the horrfying label of "bitter, rage-filled cunt". I also notice that it is women who are more often then not required to forgive for their own good. Remember, nice girls don't get angry. It conflicts with their Victorian domestic angel image and disrupts the happy household. God forbid you hold an "unhealthy" disgust for injustice and its perpetrators. Then you might gain enough power to actually stop it from happening again, and we can't have that. Forgiveness is a story notblinded, so why are you acting as if it's a Truth instead of more lies to be sorted through and respected at a distance? I came to accept 'forgiveness' as a truth for me - when I unexpectedly experienced the benefit to myself of giving up anger I'd held for another after the anger had served its useful purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hesitent, I'm not denying that some people experience benefits from forgiveness. Hell, a lot of people experience benefits from Christianity. But just because you've found something that works for you, does that mean it must invariably be a truth for everyone? Isn't that evangelism? Isn't that what this place is supposed to be a safe-haven from? I just don't understand why we can comfortably reject the "truths" of christianity while still admitting that it works for some and not others, but as soon as a topic which might call for an angry reaction, a (god-forbid) vengeance, a vindication (Wollstonecraft unconsciously used the right word, though she, in thrall also to the forgiveness police, would deny it) the sirens go up, and those who differ are smacked with chains of TRUTH and locked in a forgiveness box for their own safety. Why the double-standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What double standard Cerise? all I said was I came to accept 'forgiveness' as a truth for me - when I unexpectedly experienced the benefit to myself of giving up anger I'd held for another after the anger had served its useful purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What double standard Cerise? all I said was I came to accept 'forgiveness' as a truth for me - when I unexpectedly experienced the benefit to myself of giving up anger I'd held for another after the anger had served its useful purpose. That is probably my fault Hesitent. I guess I have been a LITTLE preachy so she was probably referring to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What double standard Cerise? all I said was I came to accept 'forgiveness' as a truth for me - when I unexpectedly experienced the benefit to myself of giving up anger I'd held for another after the anger had served its useful purpose. I wasn't referring to you as having a double standard Hesitent. I really can read, I assure you. I'm just saying that for all the references to forgiveness as unquestionably beneficial to everyone that I seem to come across unvariably, it seems as though there is a double standard as to what constitutes an acceptable truth, and what can be claimed as personal preference. That is probably my fault Hesitent. I guess I have been a LITTLE preachy so she was probably referring to that. Actually, I was more referring to Amanda's earlier posting about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I just don't understand why we can comfortably reject the "truths" of christianity while still admitting that it works for some and not others, but as soon as a topic which might call for an angry reaction, a (god-forbid) vengeance, a vindication (Wollstonecraft unconsciously used the right word, though she, in thrall also to the forgiveness police, would deny it) the sirens go up, and those who differ are smacked with chains of TRUTH and locked in a forgiveness box for their own safety. My apologies for applying the comment to myself, I guess I don't understand why there should have to be a choice between anger, vengenance, vindication and forgiveness, as if they can't follow on from each other. Hope that doesn't sound too evangelical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts