The New Religion

reply to post by nastyj


Thanks so much for finally joining us all and posting. That's fantastic.

Thanks too for taking the time to make your first post a really great one.

You posted some real great things to consider.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

sorry long post but ill continue if you guys dont mind. Sorry for all the grammar and spelling mistakes so far, and if im breaking any rules. I tend to type what what im thinking and how i talk, and i waffle a lot haha. I had to go back and redo my last pot a lot of times

...ill carry on. (damn i forgot how i ended my last post >..< i think i will stop here and wait for replies if i get any

Im sorry about my spelling and grammar in my last posts, please bear with me. And if you dont understand anything we can discuss further, if there are any key areas you wold like to raise, then it will be awesome to talk about it further as this here thread and topic is too wide to talk about on a simple level, we can get into much depth with this

thanks again - naj

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Wow i didnt think anyone would be active in replies so quick
Damn this site is good, wish there was like some sorta way we can communicate better like chatroom or something.

Btw protoplasmic, ive been reading your pots through this thread and i think ive seen you post a lot in many other threads, you mate, have one exceptional thinking process and an awesome guy. Damn i was worried about gettin too connected to this site, and i believe i am gonna fall into the trap Ahh waht the ehck its all good if im gonna be meetin peoples like yall

I would also like to say something to those who believe turning to religion, is a form of weakness in oneself or a form of disempowerment. If you were to talk to a believe or religion they will always have their opinion that is religion and man go hand in hand, for example they empower themselves etc with the use of religion and god.

Being in servitude or a form of slavery toward god seem to be percieved as being imprisoned or a lack of freedom, though if you ask a believwe they will tell yo the opposite and how religion liberates them from the traps of this world.

No matter in which angle you come across the other side will ahve an equaly stron counter argument with basis of there own opinion. At the end of it all you will come down to raw questions.

A believer will trust in god and some divine perfect being to liberate them. Yet the non believer will believe in himself to liberate them, to understand this is hard. What we can assume is that a certain level of unknowing might be found in both sides, the beleiver will believe in the unseen or godly force that enables them to be uplifted. This godly force being attributed by infinite power over all things etc.
The non beleiver will believe that in someway or form he amy be able to reach his own level of enlightenment by believeing in himself to leberate himself and reach a higher level of awereness, this is also believing in the unseen, believing in yourself is an emotion we can share wiht others, but they will ahve there own perception to what they consider is the elightenment process. So for them your way of self enlightenment can also be classed as believing in the unseen.

But id like to say from what we understand is that humans are prone to error, yet god is not prone to error. athiests will attack this by saying god and religion was th reason man made his mistake and could not reach enlightenment, and believers will also attack athiests and say that it is imposible for man to reach a level of godliness or to attribute some qualities to himself that only god can be attributed to such as knowing what is right and wrong in how to live a life.

What we do know is that despite all the wars over religion etc we do know that it was mans own choosing and his own freewill that made them, not god or religion that started the problem, before religion came it was man that was causing trouble. This i think can be proven in history with or wihtout the so called divine books or religion telling us.

So far in our history we have seen cycles of negativity coming from mankind itself, i do not believe it emanated from religion. If we became godlike is it possible for mankind to be free from error, has it been noted in history that man has ever been perfect or free from error, even the prophets noted in divine books were known to be in error but perfect only from sin. We have to question ourself whether if its possibel man can achieve a level of being perfect, and yet again we fall into the same thing, which is beleiveing in the unseen.

Its a loophole, no matter which way people will direct their debate it will come down to whther they will believe the nuseen or not, no matter how far science will go to prove something, there are infinite other things that pop up that dont fit into scientific knowledge. We have to be ready to tie down all these ways in which things work to something, we do know that in nature and everything around us there is a sence of incredible knowledge and things to marvel, even if this world is some matrix pulled over our eyes, did we as a collective conscience imagine it ourselves? are we capable of that, do ppl not believe there is some driving force in this universe that controls things? whether its nature, impossible/miraculous odds of probablity that ended up life as what we are now, i believe we all know that there is some sort of unseen force at work, the question is if we ever do figure out, by then will it be too late?

Originally posted by nastyj
Imo like i said it usually boils down to monotheism and polytheism, to make all the polytheists come together under a banner is more possible, and to make all monotheists come together is possible to, but to put both of them together wont work. Occult teaching may find itself common similarities with pagan and polytheistic ideals, wheres the monotheistic would would have strict regulation in practicing these forms of spirituality.

Yes,
the solution be available.

Allow for both, or all.
God singular in form of prime-creator (none, calm, tranquility),
binary Gods (good and bad or ying and yang) with none(dark) and infinite(white).
plural Gods of pagan practices, as in higher entities, such as star beings.
also wiccan divinities, or nature spirits, such as gnomes, elves, pixies.

I can believe in all of them at the same time,
so can you, and the we with you. :-)

One can pray to, or meditate towards any of the entities.
Indeed since can do more than one thing in a day,
can pray to several different entities.
Or just stick to one (none), if that is preferred.

The area in between these warring ideologies is the atheists mindset.

I was under the impression most atheists were "scienceists",
or believers of science,
which is a monotheistic sect started in Islam,
an then westernized during the reneissance.

Indeed the monotheism is apparent,
in the belief of an "objective reality",
which science (quantum physics) disproves.

Quantum Physics instead has "subjective reality",
where each perceiver creates their experience.

The key to how it things are so stable,
is to realize that things are conscious,
rocks have awareness (as noted by Ra from the Law of One material),
so can inform you they are with you.


Rocks and materials have awareness.
Plants and animals have desires.
Higher animals and humans have choices.

Imo to establish a religion among the atheist, everything will have to be scientifically proven to be beneficial to make it viable as a religion they can acknowledge.

We'd have to separate the scienceists from the skeptics.
Since people that believe in science would have to accept subject reality of quantum physics, and the multiverse of string theory.

Though from my experience most scienceists are still hung up on newtonian mechanics.
I once heard someone tell me "quantum physics only applies to quantum particles",
but we're all made of quantum particles, so it applies to us.

Law of Attraction is readily verifiable on a personal basis.
Many witness testimonies can attest to the fact.

from www.etymonline.com...
skeptic
1580s, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"),

Where knowledge is past-experience,
and real is set of agreed upon beliefs.
Skeptics doubt the ability to agree on past experiences.

So if they don't agree,
or accept new knowledge.

They are just about dead anyhow,
find someone with more life to them.
More fertile soil for beliefs.

Note new information is necessary for the soul to feed,
or remain interested in the host-boy.

If an atheist were asked to perform certain rituals or believe in a so called elected messiah, then he would have to be proven to be able to fit the miraculous qualities.

With Billy Meier this was showed to not work.
Even though he worked miracles,
he's still highly refuted.

And one thing we all can agree on is that there is much science hasnt been able to prove...

Proof is a vague and maldefined term.

If it was the same or similar to evidence,
such as testimony, audio, video, and physical objects,
then extra-terrestrials would certainly have to be accepted as proven.

but may will do in the near future, that means the religion will have to be updated regularly and even be changed.

agreed.
DNA changes and is updated.
"religion" is a belief-system,
it is the operating system that an entity uses.

This will beg more question to as who will control these changes being made to th religion and as generations pass, if the religion will still be fit in on era as it did another,

I like linux, it's open source ;-).
Also support atom-tribes (neo-tribalism),
so each community can formulate it's belief-system,
and the successful belief-systems thrive.

lots of fun in such diversity,
many soul learning opportunities.

so im afraid to come to a conclusion to say that a one world religion with proper fundamentals wont work. If you can call simple thing such as being 'good' 'love eachother' as a religion im afraid its not specific enough and will beget more questions....

After many years of science, physics, logic and linguistics.
Fundamentals easy as 0, 1, 2, 3

at first before anything there was nothing or none.

0 NULL, none, prime-creator, zen, calm, stable, eternal, patience

then there was not-none or not,

1 NOT, change, aware, now, physical, truth

can only be aware if there is change, such as found in a NOT gate (0->1, 1->0).
undeniable truth be what one is aware of now present-moment.


then there was none, not.
AND being two things simultaneously.

2 AND, love, together

then there was none, not, and

3 OR, choice, freedom

with these logic-gates and concepts one can make a computer, or a turing-complete machine. a turing-complete machine can generate any conceivable algorithm.
So all be infinite, having derived from a turing-complete substrate.

If you have any questions,
or would like something clarified,
please feel free to ask.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by lowki]

I can believe in all of them at the same time,
so can you, and the we with you. :-)

This sounds simple to comprehend, but simply believing in them is a different story to practicing them. A believer of a chosen religion will have strict practices to follow, if you believe in all the gods then you wil ahve o also practice the guidelines set by all the gods, thus if you dont accomplish this task, they wont class you as believing in them at all. Sincerity is of utmost importance in religion, be it mono or polytheism, when you believe you have to BELIEVE with all your heart, and believing in some gods will contradict others, for example some believe in Zeus while others hades. That part wont work and you cant do both of them together.

I was under the impression most atheists were "scienceists",
or believers of science,
which is a monotheistic sect started in Islam,
an then westernized during the reneissance.

Im not sure if i understand this part, how does atheist scientist become part of a monotheistic sect in Islam, i may have misunderstood something here please clarify.

Quantum Physics instead has "subjective reality",
where each perceiver creates their experience.

The key to how it things are so stable,
is to realize that things are conscious,
rocks have awareness (as noted by Ra from the Law of One material),
so can inform you they are with you.

Rocks and materials have awareness.
Plants and animals have desires.
Higher animals and humans have choices.

Quantum theory will fit monotheism still, even in Islam for example they believe that during the hereafter, inanimate objects will be given speech etc, to act as witness for the misdeeds of the miscreant. Although they wont belief animals havent been given free will during the present day.

and the multiverse of string theory.

Multiverse and string theory is a perfect way to explain monotheistic ideals, as well as polytheistic. In all major religions they will talk about djinns, demons presiding around us but not visible. Going to heaven is describes as rising etc. Ive been looking a lot into this, and can talk all day about similarities about the string theory and multiverse that fits perfectly with religious ideals. This is an important topic in itself and would love talk more about.

They are just about dead anyhow,
find someone with more life to them.
More fertile soil for beliefs.

Monothiestic studies show, that god has made some people blind and ignorant, though they still keep trying to make them learn about spirituality and god. This is the duality of of thngs to come, at the end everyone will divide from the spiritual and unseen believing, and those who deny it no mater hw much evidence you show them.

With Billy Meier this was showed to not work.
Even though he worked miracles,
he's still highly refuted.

Hmmm ive not had about this dude or what he performed, but by miracles i mean those miracles that have been said before, like splitting the sea into two, or turning staff into snake etc etc. When a miracle is obvious and in front of you, then im sure he will become popular

Proof is a vague and maldefined term.

If it was the same or similar to evidence,
such as testimony, audio, video, and physical objects,
then extra-terrestrials would certainly have to

The so called divine books, Bible, Quran etc have all testimonies in them, stuff that can be attributed to modern day science, society, and talk about the unseen, which modern science has also been able to provide additional info.
This only strengthen the believers heart toward the unseen because he will find synchronicities between his religion and its teachings that apparent in modern day. The divine book is proof to a believer the same as Jupiter is proof to the scientist.

Originally posted by nastyj Imo like i said it usually boils down to monotheism and polytheism, to make all the polytheists come together under a banner is more possible, and to make all monotheists come together is possible to, but to put both of them together wont work. Occult teaching may find itself common similarities with pagan and polytheistic ideals, wheres the monotheistic would would have strict regulation in practicing these forms of spirituality.

It's possible to bring all monotheists religions together, but it's certainly not probable. Anything is possible, but the day monotheistic religions combine together and work uniformly on this earth is the day pigs fly.

Generally, Monotheistic religions instructs you to not believe in any other God, but the God designated to that particular monotheistic religion. Thus, people, who belongs to a monotheistic religion, will not follow any or agree with any other God that's outside their religion.

Now it's certainly possible polytheist religion combining and working as one.

Originally posted by nastyj

Indeed the monotheism is apparent,
in the belief of an "objective reality",
which science (quantum physics) disproves.

Actually, monotheism doesn't doesn't advocate a object reality. Contrarily, they are against it because it conflict with their God word.

Objective reality is the reality that really exists, and within this existence, the environment can be studied empirically (Objectively) and the evidence gather from this environment is deprived of someone's bias or someone's subjective interpretation. Another example of objective reality, If everyone experienced or see a phenomenon simultaneously, then it reasonable to say this experience of said phenomenon happened in objective reality. If a person claim they seen a phenomenon, then their experience of seeing a phenomenon is open to being dismiss due to a lack of evidence.

If I saw spider man swinging from building to building, and everyone else saw spider man swing from building to building from their perspective, then spider man swinging happened in objective reality. If I claim I saw a superman flying, and I told everyone else my claim, then their open to dismiss my claim because of a lack of evidence and my subjective claim.

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by Tryptych

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

You can talk all the mystical mumbo jumbo, mixed with metaphor, mixed with history, mixed with perception, in micro and macro, from different cultures, from different time periods, different rituals, different this - different that - and as a result have the world divided and ignorant.

Or do what Jesus wanted, not to worship him, but to emulate him. Have an individual religion centred around you, and your connection with God, who is pure Love. And practice it where ever you go 24/7-365 - not just on a Sat or Sun.

Aren't Krishnamurti's ideas exactly what could be called "mystical mumbo jumbo"?

he didn't have anything happy to say.

Maybe he didn't. I don't know. But that is completely understandable considering the state world was then and how it is now. The fact that he spoke his mind and how he sees the world doesn't bother me at all. He was a theosophist, but I always felt he completely missed the point, like so many others. I never got anything out his stuff, and haven't 'till this day. He has a good basic message 'tho.

And isn't having a "religion centered around yourself" the exact opposite of the original christian teachings?

If by "original" you're refering to Billy Meier's version,
then I'm not so sure.

No no no.. I'm talking about THE original Christianity, ten commandments and so forth. The actual message that is hidden in the Bible. Or not even the Bible..

Whoa. I'm gonna take a break now


[edit on 17/4/2010 by Tryptych]

It's possible to bring all monotheists religions together, but it's certainly not probable. Anything is possible, but the day monotheistic religions combine together and work uniformly on this earth is the day pigs fly.

Yeah i dont believe for a minute it wold work or happen, society today just shows the levels of debate between montheistic religions.

Generally, Monotheistic religions instructs you to not believe in any other God, but the God designated to that particular monotheistic religion. Thus, people, who belongs to a monotheistic religion, will not follow any or agree with any other God that's outside their religion.

Hmm i dont think tis is true, if you look at major religions you will know that they all kind of accept the same god, or one god. The bible will ahve stories about moses, and will both agree on the oneness of god. Islam also believes that the same one god has been worshiped by all monotheistic religions, yet only time and mankind have altered the original scriptures, so they become unreliable such as Christianity believing Jesus is divine, therefore associating godlike powers to him, other than that the oneness of god has been taught similarly in monotheistic religions. They all seem to describe go the same way and attribute omniscient qualities to him similarly. The only things that may differ greatly are names, which still have some similarity, and that in christianity it says that man was made in god image, which goes against Islamic preachings. Other than that a lot of qualities are the same.
Though we do not have knowledge of what has been altered and how previous montheistic religions were taught to practice their prayer etc.
In Islam it has also been said that those who practiced previous monotheism in its purest form, without the knowledge or knowhow to seek Islam, and if they remain pure then they ill too die as a believer.

Indeed the monotheism is apparent,
in the belief of an "objective reality",
which science (quantum physics) disproves.

Im not to aware in the concept of objective reality, but i dont see any conflicts between quantum theory and religion, though i havent done as much research into this aspect tbh. Maybe you can clarfiy a bit mroe for me, and then can add my views on the matter.

And isn't having a "religion centered around yourself" the exact opposite of the original christian teachings?

Tbh this wouldn't work for major religions, they will simply say God is more knowledgeable to give you the guideline on how you live our life, instead of you being able to do it yourself. Now most might consider that ok we as humans know ourselves more than anyone right? But we do know that we are imperfect, and we do not have knowledge over 90% of what we are capable of, religion will tell them that god knows you better than yourself.

To me this makes sense, and if you use the example of pets or animals. DO animals know what is best for them or do we know? ofc we know right? tha why we have to take care for them if they are our pets, and we have wildlife conservations to preserve them form being instinct. our advanced intellect gives us that priority over them to make sure we establish guidelines for them to be able to live healthy lives.

The same way religion will say god is far more itelligent then us, and god bestows the most efficient way in his teachings to become pure or enlightened, free from sin etc etc.

Originally posted by nastyj

And isn't having a "religion centered around yourself" the exact opposite of the original christian teachings?

Tbh this wouldn't work for major religions, they will simply say God is more knowledgeable to give you the guideline on how you live our life, instead of you being able to do it yourself. Now most might consider that ok we as humans know ourselves more than anyone right? But we do know that we are imperfect, and we do not have knowledge over 90% of what we are capable of, religion will tell them that god knows you better than yourself.

To me this makes sense, and if you use the example of pets or animals. DO animals know what is best for them or do we know? ofc we know right? tha why we have to take care for them if they are our pets, and we have wildlife conservations to preserve them form being instinct. our advanced intellect gives us that priority over them to make sure we establish guidelines for them to be able to live healthy lives.

The same way religion will say god is far more itelligent then us, and god bestows the most efficient way in his teachings to become pure or enlightened, free from sin etc etc.

I don't believe in "enlightenment"... what the hell is that? I think we are on a ongoing process, collectively, moving towards Something, unknown.

It also fascinates me that all the hardcore atheists claim that "God" (whatever that is) is somekind of escape. This theory might fit most religious fundies etc, but not everyone.

Religion... the original message of the teachers (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna & co.) have been corrupted and abused throughout times. I agree with Dawkins that we don't really need religion. Yet the teachings are there. For a person like him, I can see how it seems very absurd that there is actually some kind of "god", 'cause all he sees is the corrupted religion.

What I don't understand how it can offend someone that there is something, far beyond their comprehension that they're not able to understand. That happens all the time in science.

reply to post by Tryptych


I dont mean enlightenment as a term for bing spiritually fulfilled and starge we reach bt i mean and use it as a word to describe the feeling when one has become religious etc.

Yep i also agree we are all moving towards something, though i tend to characterize that something being more 'aware' of how science and religion share some qualities and that there is some supernatural force that has its hand with how the collective conscience is growing.

Also not all religions are corrupted, some are still free of corruption..

[edit on 17-4-2010 by nastyj]

reply to post by nastyj


How do you determinate supernatural? Is there really such a thing, i mean everything has a cause, right? They just might be aspects of nature we haven't really yet understood.

It might just be that the existence itself is in someway "supernatural". It would explain a lot of things, from a philosophical point of view. Like why haven't we contacted any ETs, while it seems so probable that they are there etc..

Originally posted by nastyj

I can believe in all of them at the same time,
so can you, and the we with you. :-)

This sounds simple to comprehend, but simply believing in them is a different story to practicing them. A believer of a chosen religion will have strict practices to follow,

strictness is usually a sign one is far from "source",
so is holding onto some fragments as best they can,
by forming a tradition of repetition.

if you believe in all the gods then you wil ahve o also practice the guidelines set by all the gods, thus if you dont accomplish this task, they wont class you as believing in them at all.

Truth is present moment experience,
physical-sense or mind-sense.

If this is a true divinity then you can interact with them directly.

There are infinite amount of plural gods (star beings, astral entities),
you can decide to interact with a particular entity.

Several channeling books mention Christ consciousness,
being represented by Sananda a largely Arcturian council,
but potentially with other federation members.

Arcturians being the species that Jmmanuel chose,
to incarnate with after leaving Earth.
A species of healer light-beings.

In Islam "Allah" is a non-entity,
they have no image, no body, nothing,
but are creator of all.
So they are equivalent to none.

None can not speak, think, act, feel,
but you can become closer to none,
via non-action non-thought, AKA zen meditation.

I was under the impression most atheists were "scienceists",
or believers of science,
which is a monotheistic sect started in Islam,
an then westernized during the reneissance.

Im not sure if i understand this part, how does atheist scientist become part of a monotheistic sect in Islam, i may have misunderstood something here please clarify.

Philosophy came from Greece,
while Europe in dark ages, philosophy was saved by Islam,
which added scientific method,
then eventually westerners relearned it calling it "modern science"
and Islam forgot it.

from Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...
While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since antiquity (for example, by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abu Rayhan Biruni and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.

With Billy Meier this was showed to not work.
Even though he worked miracles,
he's still highly refuted.

Hmmm ive not had about this dude or what he performed, but by miracles i mean those miracles that have been said before, like splitting the sea into two, or turning staff into snake etc etc. When a miracle is obvious and in front of you, then im sure he will become popular

We have people like Criss Angel,
who have performed most of and many more "miracles" than Jesus.
Teleportation, telekinesis, telepathy, rapid manifestation.

Yet while he can perform many physical feats,
he doesn't have much if any spiritual beliefs to spread.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777

Generally, Monotheistic religions instructs you to not believe in any other God, but the God designated to that particular monotheistic religion. Thus, people, who belongs to a monotheistic religion, will not follow any or agree with any other God that's outside their religion.

That's completely fine.
In an atom-tribe they can have their own beliefs
about any particular deity.

the atom-tribe is a structure that they are allowed to conform to.
within it they can have their own belief-system or DNA.

Originally posted by lowki

Indeed the monotheism is apparent,
in the belief of an "objective reality",
which science (quantum physics) disproves.

Actually, monotheism doesn't doesn't advocate a object reality. Contrarily, they are against it because it conflict with their God word.

The monotheistic aspect of "objective reality" is that there is only 1 reality, just as there is only 1 god.
So instead of calling it god, it's called reality.

Objective reality is the reality that really exists, and within this existence, the environment can be studied empirically (Objectively) and the evidence gather from this environment is deprived of someone's bias or someone's subjective interpretation.

It is impossible to gather information without subjectively experiencing it.
The physical is a subset of the mind,
the mind continues beyond the physical body.

Any bias or belief-system, is like a magic spell,
which changes how something manifests.

There are patterns, that may be more common,
having been around a long time,
like atoms, trees, stars.

then their experience of seeing a phenomenon is open to being dismiss due to a lack of evidence.

Any evidence at all, including simply the novelty of the information,
is evidence enough to quantum bind,
after-which you can remote view to verify.
The multiverse is infinite, so all be.

Whether you choose to integrate any belief,
including popular beliefs,
is up to you.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by lowki]

[edit on 17-4-2010 by lowki]

In his thread, as usual, Protoplasmic makes a very clear case at the beginning, posing a very poignant question to all and engaging us in a mental exercise to discuss a hypothetical new religion that we might want to have for ourselves, as well as for all humankind since the old ones have started to reek of lies, manipulations and conspiracies

If you, like I do, think that religions, their philosophies, their ethical guidelines, their myths and their answers are 100% man-made, and 100% for only and only practical reasons, then you might agree that this is a realistic exercise. If humans, very much like us, with limited knowledge about the physical world, have written the mambo jambo we have been following for millennia, why shouldn't we, right?

However, there are at least two big problems with naming the result of such an exercise a "religion".

There needs to be some level of faith-based, unknown-based supernatural element, in the absence of which, it'd be nothing but a literal code of ethics or a doctrine or simply law…. The fact that we would be making it up or "developing" it now is not very different than manufacturing a placebo pill for ourselves, and then expecting it to do it's magic. By default, a consciously developed religion, at least in the eyes and minds of it's developers as well as the threads readers, is just self medication of a placebo.

And... To be one, a religion needs to have answers and explanations to certain unknowns. There seems to be certain very basic questions that a religion needs to answer. From the smallest tribal belief systems to the oldest and most sophisticated organized religions, it has always answered where we come form, where we are going and who we are. We start asking these questions at a very early age so it would be fair to assume they have been present for a very long time within the human mind and an integral part of our ability to cope with a harsh and unknown world. Therefore. any "Uh, I don't know" answer or any hesitation and doubt within the answer is detrimental to the religion no matter of how good it's philosophy, how advanced it's reasoning, and how mature it's inventors might be.

I can't help noting that in the 17 pages of interesting commentary, certain concepts can be thrown around under the assumption that they have some universally accepted meaning. Like "god", "God" or even "GOD"… Like "soul", "spiritual", "ancient", "modern", "science", and many many others, the meaning of which seem to differ greatly even between posters seemingly agreeing with each other or sharing similar philosophies. So much so that, even though the thread's premise is defining a religion, not too many posters are interested in actually defining what they themselves understand when they use certain terms. I think even within a small church of a small close knit culturally homogeneous community, every member has a very different mental picture and definition of what they believe in. We develop these "visions" from a very early and therefore very ignorant age. When infants become aware and start asking existential questions they find the answers in the adults around them and form their so-called spirituality based on these people's notions of any concepts they get introduced to.

As a result, I would have to categorically define all poster's minds, including my own, simply corrupt. (no offense… just within this context :-) Any religious commentary is a result of our reaction to and relationship with that child-minded concept we develop at the age of 4-5 and spend a lifetime trying to reason with it.

Whether you have chosen to accept what was given to you as a child, or reacted to and rejected it thru mental struggle, either way, the premise of any argument we make, besides being based on age old dogmas, ethical codes, ignorant philosophies and a very very limited amount of knowledge, is simply based on an inherited notion that we "need" religion. Do we?

Originally posted by may_be_true

However, there are at least two big problems with naming the result of such an exercise a "religion".

The term "belief-system" is more appropriate.
Certainly is more descriptive.

There are proprietary belief-systems with a small group of "coders".

An interesting alternative be an open-source belief-system,
like the operating-system gnu-linux.

manufacturing a placebo pill for ourselves, and then expecting it to do it's magic.

placebo's are effective for many things.
please note that it is the mind of the user that brings about the effect.

as infinite beings, we can all do magic.

And... To be one, a religion needs to have answers and explanations to certain unknowns. answered where we come form,

none, nowhere.
that's everyone common place of origin.

00000...

where we are going

infinity,
all-being.
111111....

and who we are.

an entity between and of none and all.

101101011001011001

We develop these "visions" from a very early and therefore very ignorant age.

preference for term "naive" in previous statement.
where ignorance is something a person chose to do,
just as one chooses to ignore.

naive, be from lack of information.
these "visions" of children, can be remote-viewings or past-life memories.
So please take them seriously.
:-)

Just as you'd like to be taken seriously,
be you perceived as child or elder.

Any religious commentary is a result of our reaction to and relationship with that child-minded concept we develop at the age of 4-5 and spend a lifetime trying to reason with it.

When I was 5,
was on a trip to some mountains in Crimea.
Visited an ancient Tauri temple mount.
On the way to it,
I took a small path to the left,
where a shining ball spoke to me,
and merged with my brain.

for weeks afterwards my parents tell me I spoke of many strange things,
interesting many adults that were in the surroundings.

eventually became dormant, reawakened or enlightened January 19 2007.
I was laying and meditating, when I felt a warmth creep up my feet and by body dissolved into warm light,
I saw myself as a yellow ball with black eyes (which is typical description of soul).
A split second, but an eternity.

is simply based on an inherited notion that we "need" religion. Do we?

we require a belief-system.
just as a computer requires an operating system.
without it, would be little more than a heap of atoms.

if by religion you mean a proprietary belief system, like Catholicism
then no, we can do without it, by using an alternative.
Though at the same time there are people that prefer to use proprietary technologies,
as many still us Microsoft Windows, we should certainly allow them to.

we can have open-source belief systems, such as Wicca and Atom-Tribes,
and change the beliefs we have to accommodate new information.

reply to post by lowki


Thanks so much for reading my post and replying to it.

"Belief System" is my preferred terminology as well. However, it is important to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

A knowledge based system is based on verifiable data. Granted, knowledge can also be limited in accuracy since it is based on perceptions and the interpretations of the observer. I can quite confidently claim that I know that rainbows are made of such and such colors, but this observation is based on the physical properties of human eyes and a color blind person or a different species may observe and therefore "know" quite differently.

placebo's are effective for many things.
please note that it is the mind of the user that brings about the effect.

I sense disagreement in the tone but we do seem to agree on that. To be able to have an effect, a placebo's main requirement is that "the mind of it's user" is in the dark about whether or not it is indeed a placebo. I am aware that certain people manage to create a logical loop and convince themselves to believe certain things that are simply figments of their imaginations and assign tremendous value to them.

But let's not mistake these with any religious or spiritual or supernatural phenomenon.

As for ignorant versus naive... Naivete is the lack of experience, wisdom or judgement. A 5 year old is certainly all that, but I would say the "ignorance" of a 5 year old, the lack of knowledge and information, the lack of any comparative data to establish an opinion, a concept, let alone a belief is the dominant issue here.

Your experience as a 5 year old... It is so in line with my comments in my previous post that I am not entirely sure how to respond... Would you care to elaborate on this experience and your mother's reaction and what kind of a "belief system" she subscribes to or subscribed to at the time of the incident, etc. to put it in to some context?

Can you also help us understand what the light told you and how it merged with your brain? And what the effect of the relatively recent return, the end of the dormancy, had on you. What is your interpretation of it all?

I would also be very interested in knowing what you mean by "soul", "101101011001011001".

Though at the same time there are people that prefer to use proprietary technologies,
as many still us Microsoft Windows, we should certainly allow them to.

Yes... Maybe... I will just end my post by noting that any OS (using your analogy) is fully dependent on, limited by and custom written for the hardware it runs on.

Thank you for your post.

Originally posted by may_be_true
reply to post by lowki

 

Thanks so much for reading my post and replying to it.

we reflect each others joy :-)

"Belief System" is my preferred terminology as well. However, it is important to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

belief, is mind-held statement.
knowledge be past experience.

A knowledge based system is based on verifiable data.

verifiable?
typically in western context this means a science priest or "scientist" must bless it,
or even a high-council of scientists must bless it by making it "published" with "peer-review".

a statement is a statement,
can be descriptive of a belief,
or a past-experience with physical body,
with or without blessing from a particular priesthood.

if by verifiable you mean you can find a similar statement from another person,
or have an experience which could lead you to express a similar statement.
then you've already chosen that you wish to manifest this into your day to day life.
note that all statements or beliefs can be conjoured into physical body now sensation,
though you can choose to conjour something else.

different species may observe and therefore "know" quite differently.

so can be the case with different people.

or peoples of different belief-systems.

believe certain things that are simply figments of their imaginations and assign tremendous value to them.

so would that be like mental self stimulation?

please note there are many valid, and even "science priesthood proved" mind-sensations such as remote-viewing.
as well anything imagined in mind can be manifested in body,
due to infinite nature of multiverse.

Your experience as a 5 year old... It is so in line with my comments in my previous post that I am not entirely sure how to respond... Would you care to elaborate on this experience and your mother's reaction and what kind of a "belief system" she subscribes to or subscribed to at the time of the incident, etc. to put it in to some context?

at that part of the trip she had been away.
I was with my father and some lady that was with the camping group.

later I remember there being a man there as well.
it might have been another time we went to the same place,
that seemed to join us part way,
a tall dark figure I didn't get a good look at.
but I was 5 and didn't really see much above peoples legs.

there were many people that went to the general crimea trip,
probably around 20 or 30 people.
In the soviet union people had vacations of at least a month, sometimes 2 months.

my dad is a physicist and an ascribes to the scientific "material world" though he likes reading fantasy novels. The strangest part of his belief system is he thinks there are things that "need to be done".

My mom is the more spiritual person, having read Louisa Hay and Lobsang Rampa.
Gave me a Lobsang Rampa book when I was in grade school.

Both my parents have university degrees and are now computer programmers.

Though generally they were atheist (as per soviet union), though I was baptised christian orthodox in some alley way by a priest that did run-by group baptisms.

Can you also help us understand what the light told you and how it merged with your brain?

It asked me basic information such as my name, my age, where I was from, and who I was with, seemed like a verification process.

at some point I noticed my dad and the lady walking through the main gate,
said goodbye to the ball and started running towards them.
time froze, and I remember the balls perspective of moving into my head,
it didn't bump into it, it was translucent and just seemed to overlap.

I remember being on the Tauri mound,
climbing down the cliff side with my dad,
and walking through a field of grass.
there was some superstition that one had to leave the temple
by a different path than one had arrived,
though the exit path if it had stairs before,
it did not then, was just vertical cliff
with some hand and foot holds for a few meters.

And what the effect of the relatively recent return, the end of the dormancy, had on you. What is your interpretation of it all?

well I blogged for over a year and half almost non-stop,
to record much of the information as it was blooding into my brain,
simultaneously with kundalini awakening with such intense energy it often felt like I was being electrocuted.

I would also be very interested in knowing what you mean by "soul", "101101011001011001".

in computers, if you get to the core of any datastructure,
it is made of numbers, which can be represented in binary.
with computers we can create anything we define.

also I was showing how we are a combination of prime-creator (calm/stable) and infinite-creator (act/change),
we achieve a balance by having as many ones as zeros.

it's a digital microcosm example.
to bring something tangible to "abstract words" like prime-creator and infinite-creator,
as well as self in such a context.

Though at the same time there are people that prefer to use proprietary technologies,
as many still us Microsoft Windows, we should certainly allow them to.

Yes... Maybe... I will just end my post by noting that any OS (using your analogy) is fully dependent on, limited by and custom written for the hardware it runs on.

Thank you for your post.

that is the case for proprietary operating system.
but open source operating systems like linux can run on many different hardwares.

So proprietary examples of star-being organizations,
like the "reptilian empire" catering mainly to alpha-draconis relatives,
or the "mammalian federation" mainly for descendants of lyra.

An open source alternative would be Orion Priesthood,
which accepts both reptilian and mammalian as well as other entities,
providing them with basic needs (mammalian) but also giving them much personal freedom (reptilian).

Based on my mind-sensed memories of past lives,
I was "sent" or recommended to go to earth by a member of the Orion Priesthood,
who said that I'd find many of my likeness, and might like it quite a bit,
it certainly is the case, I'm quite happy with how it is.

I remember living in a world of robots for a really long time,
it might be from a far flung galaxy (m51) like the Animus.