Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Well, dinkerdoo, flap my cap - guess i best just give up living. Really? Seriously? Is this genuinely the best you have to give,
the depth of the intelligence and talent that you have to share? I don't believe that - maybe you do?
Someone mentioned religion as a means to be special and, yes, it would seem that it can be used in attempt to serve what might be called egoic specialness. But, in that
way, it might not be so different from anything or anyone else. So what is ego? Some might call a choice to see oneself as totally shut off from the divine, form the whole (holy) universe. But perhaps one way of looking at tt is to say that ego is basically that which relates in such a way so as to always seek to take more out of a 'system' than it is willing to put in. Whether this more is in terms of finance, energy, emotion doesn't matter. Yet the curious thing is even if, for example, one gets lots of money this way there will somehow be a sense of lack floating around - even if one tries to ignore/deny this. And as for ego in what might be called called intimate relations...
So maybe a first step might be coming to be aware of a choice for ego so as to let it go - in this way making a less negative net contribution to humanity (though the ego might
try to say that you had surely been making the greatest, best contribution that has ever been made...). Perhaps through this one might also remember the 'divine' gifts/talents/qualities within and learn how nest to give share these, to give and so naturally come to receive, in balance. As I learn to give more, I come to receive more yet still in balance? Why is this seen as such a bad thing - ok it might not serve the unbalanced specialness of ego but apart from that? And what if this way of giving and receiving brought with it a sense of complete contentment, a sense of whole contentment, a freedom form the busy mind that's trying to figure out what to do next or maybe even figure out how not to let the past catch up.
So, again, maybe religion can be used to serve specialness but to say that all of it must therefore do so is to miss the point - that it is how one chooses to relate (for specialness or not) that will change one's experience with 'divinity' and/or anything/anyone else.
way, it might not be so different from anything or anyone else. So what is ego? Some might call a choice to see oneself as totally shut off from the divine, form the whole (holy) universe. But perhaps one way of looking at tt is to say that ego is basically that which relates in such a way so as to always seek to take more out of a 'system' than it is willing to put in. Whether this more is in terms of finance, energy, emotion doesn't matter. Yet the curious thing is even if, for example, one gets lots of money this way there will somehow be a sense of lack floating around - even if one tries to ignore/deny this. And as for ego in what might be called called intimate relations...
So maybe a first step might be coming to be aware of a choice for ego so as to let it go - in this way making a less negative net contribution to humanity (though the ego might
try to say that you had surely been making the greatest, best contribution that has ever been made...). Perhaps through this one might also remember the 'divine' gifts/talents/qualities within and learn how nest to give share these, to give and so naturally come to receive, in balance. As I learn to give more, I come to receive more yet still in balance? Why is this seen as such a bad thing - ok it might not serve the unbalanced specialness of ego but apart from that? And what if this way of giving and receiving brought with it a sense of complete contentment, a sense of whole contentment, a freedom form the busy mind that's trying to figure out what to do next or maybe even figure out how not to let the past catch up.
So, again, maybe religion can be used to serve specialness but to say that all of it must therefore do so is to miss the point - that it is how one chooses to relate (for specialness or not) that will change one's experience with 'divinity' and/or anything/anyone else.
yep
Well-Known Member
Was clarifying not correcting!
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
Religion is a load of bollocks but if people want to do it, fair enough.
Religion, Spirituality, Creative Arts. Can they have a role to play with/in football, City, bluemoon forum. I believe that they can, though I may be wrong. So let's take a look at some aspects.
In Ferran Sorriano's book there is for sure a mention a spiritual principle - actually the title of the book strongly hints at that. In Marti Pernanau's book 'Pep Guardiola : The Evolution' it's clear to see that the management have an interest in the principles of Creative Arts...and there is even a mention of the likes of Krishnamurti and Osho. As for the owners, aren;t they muslims? Seem to be doing a half decent job. And there are players such as Sterling, Ederson and Jesus that have a religious practice and yet still seem to e able to play football pretty well.
So with City and Football Religion, Spirituality and Creative arts seem like they can go together, at least to some degree they can said to be open.
But with Bluemoon? I don't know but over time it has seemed apparent that any mention of Religion, Spirituality, Creative Arts brings out some folks that feel the need to
shout that anyone that believes or practices this sort of thing is cuntish, deluded, mentally ills, hate filled, morally degenerate etc etc. So it seems kind of closed, to say the least. But what I find curious is why these same folk don't put there money where their mouth is and show this disgust by, for example, not going to games. Or, if they do go to games, then at least take a flag that states that Sterling, Jesus and Ederson are deluded cunts for being practicing christians. Or, better yet, hire a plane to fly over the stadium during a game with a banner that states 'We, the true, sane fans of Manchester City hereby declare that our owners are mentally ill, hate filled fuckwits just by dint of being muslims.' see how that goes, right? At least it would be honest?
In Ferran Sorriano's book there is for sure a mention a spiritual principle - actually the title of the book strongly hints at that. In Marti Pernanau's book 'Pep Guardiola : The Evolution' it's clear to see that the management have an interest in the principles of Creative Arts...and there is even a mention of the likes of Krishnamurti and Osho. As for the owners, aren;t they muslims? Seem to be doing a half decent job. And there are players such as Sterling, Ederson and Jesus that have a religious practice and yet still seem to e able to play football pretty well.
So with City and Football Religion, Spirituality and Creative arts seem like they can go together, at least to some degree they can said to be open.
But with Bluemoon? I don't know but over time it has seemed apparent that any mention of Religion, Spirituality, Creative Arts brings out some folks that feel the need to
shout that anyone that believes or practices this sort of thing is cuntish, deluded, mentally ills, hate filled, morally degenerate etc etc. So it seems kind of closed, to say the least. But what I find curious is why these same folk don't put there money where their mouth is and show this disgust by, for example, not going to games. Or, if they do go to games, then at least take a flag that states that Sterling, Jesus and Ederson are deluded cunts for being practicing christians. Or, better yet, hire a plane to fly over the stadium during a game with a banner that states 'We, the true, sane fans of Manchester City hereby declare that our owners are mentally ill, hate filled fuckwits just by dint of being muslims.' see how that goes, right? At least it would be honest?
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
Please stop posting.
Not as convincing an argument without writing it in iambic pentameter
arfur you can believe/practice whatever you like, i really don't care, but if you tell me something exists that i may not think does then naturally i might want to challenge you to prove it
i really don't see anything unreasonable in that and that would go for sterling,jesus,ederson and my mum for that matter
Fair enough - though perhaps I can't prove that there may be sunlight outside of a darkened room if someone is unwilling to draw the curtains. Beyond that, sure don't feel the
need to believe anything I say - that's not a problem...at the same time can I request that perhaps you refrain from forcing your way of thinking/your beliefs onto me? That, for me, seems like a great way of being - especially if it can come with some kind of mutual respect even if we disagree wildly ? And yes, it is probably fair to suggest that the likes of the christian church have, at times, chosen something other than that. Indeed the Pope was in Mexico a while back and spoke of asking for forgiveness from the indigenous populations for the way the catholic church had treated them in the past. And, no, I'm not catholic...
I don't believe i have forced you to believe anything you don't want to, only what proof for what you believe in the form of questions, hardly force
i gathered you weren't catholic a while back, oh and i wish you would give up on the constant analogies mate, it makes it far harder than it needs to be, but of course it maybe a intentional modus operandi
Do you ever look at art? Paintings, maybe? In this there might be two ways of looking at a painting. One is just the logical mind - the painting has this person and that object...maybe even contains some symbolism to convey this meaning or that. There is an understanding in this way. The other way is with the intuitive mind, which may come to open to the feeling of what the artist was wanting to convey...emotions, energy, beauty etc. This is another way of understanding. Perhaps the great works of art are those that manage to communicate a message in which both kinds of understandings are in union...a wholeness or a way that is 'holistic' if you like. Now it would seem apparent that if one studies the painting with only the logical mind, then the understanding - the richness - of the painting will somehow be less than what it could be. If you want to question whether I can communicate in this way then, apparently the answer to this is 'obviously not.' And that's ok. In this sense, each time I write here then I might fail to communicate. Again and again. But if, through this, I come to learn how to learn to communicate in a more 'wholly' way is that such a bad thing? Is it so offensive? I am guessing you are not a teacher of painting but if you were then surely you wouldn't say to someone 'if you can't come into this classroom and paint like Van Gogh, then get the fuck out?' or maybe 'prove to me that you can paint like Picasso before you pick up the paints and brush and approach the canvas?' That's a bit back to front, no?
yep
Well-Known Member
You can witness to, proclaim and declare a loving relationship if you experience love of a person or God but you cannot prove it.
That was a compliment mate! I'm enjoying these posts and wish we had more of them.on the forum
again you jump straight to worst case senario i.e. force/offensive
where i have i said what you write is offensive,
of course i look at art, some i like some i don't but this is veering away from the topic isn't it?