You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
*sneaks into forum - swaps boxing ring for octagon...so when Magicpole looks for his corner, he'll lose his bearings. Sure that'll fox him! But shhh, don't tell him anyone.I will get back to you on this. I tried last night but my posts weren’t carried onto the reply which made it harder for people reading to reference what I am replying to. I will sort it and come out fighting tomorrow. :)
Thanks. But 'FollowArfur#?' Erm, I'm not sur.... ahhh, ok. arfursays 'Always tell your mummy
before you go off somewhere.' No, wait...that was Charly. Far out. Try again. arfursays 'always return to rigid theories of truth in your head as if these were the holy grail - especially if you find yourself beginning to really enjoy life.'
Anyhow here's a nice, religious song for people to meditate to if they choose on this holy day...
think you are getting mixed up art, city don't play today
Seems like this has gone quiet? Ok,perhaps now there is space to speak...
I have known that which is violent, unkind, cheating,lying, arrogant within. Not great. Not how I want to be. How best to be with this? Maybe by trying to be their opposites? Not such a bad thing for sure? And yet perhaps there is another way...for example - instead of just trying to be non-violent, instead feel the violence within and let it go...opening to that which is beyond violence/non violence? Is this possible too?
And so, maybe it is not so much a question of which way is right - one of 'religion' or one of 'science'. but rather whether its intent is one of violence or non violence...or something beyond this?
Is like - maybe trying to be non violent is aok but not quite the same as being free from the violence within?
If so...is it possible that trying to be 'non -religious' by being 'scientific' is a wonderful thing... but not quite as beautiful as coming to truly be free of religion?
Beyond that...is it possible that those who wish to be free of the 'darkness' (of religion) are going to have to be willing to open beyond the commonly
accepted 'light' of truth that is called science?
Peace.
I have known that which is violent, unkind, cheating,lying, arrogant within. Not great. Not how I want to be. How best to be with this? Maybe by trying to be their opposites? Not such a bad thing for sure? And yet perhaps there is another way...for example - instead of just trying to be non-violent, instead feel the violence within and let it go...opening to that which is beyond violence/non violence? Is this possible too?
And so, maybe it is not so much a question of which way is right - one of 'religion' or one of 'science'. but rather whether its intent is one of violence or non violence...or something beyond this?
Is like - maybe trying to be non violent is aok but not quite the same as being free from the violence within?
If so...is it possible that trying to be 'non -religious' by being 'scientific' is a wonderful thing... but not quite as beautiful as coming to truly be free of religion?
Beyond that...is it possible that those who wish to be free of the 'darkness' (of religion) are going to have to be willing to open beyond the commonly
accepted 'light' of truth that is called science?
Peace.
Last edited:
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Seems like this has gone quiet? Ok,perhaps now there is space to speak...
I have known that which is violent, unkind, cheating,lying, arrogant within. Not great. Not how I want to be. How best to be with this? Maybe by trying to be their opposites? Not such a bad thing for sure? And yet perhaps there is another way...for example - instead of just trying to be non-violent, instead feel the violence within and let it go...opening to that which is beyond violence/non violence? Is this possible too?
And so, maybe it is not so much a question of which way is right - one of 'religion' or one of 'science'. but rather whether its intent is one of violence or non violence...or something beyond this?
Is like - maybe trying to be non violent is aok but not quite the same as being free from the violence within?
If so...is it possible that trying to be 'non -religious' by being 'scientific' is a wonderful thing... but not quite as beautiful as coming to truly be free of religion?
Beyond that...is it possible that those who wish to be free of the 'darkness' (of religion) are going to have to be willing to open beyond the commonly
accepted 'light' of truth that is called science?
Peace.
I'm not sure what you're asking!
Are you binary in your seeking of solution?
Or can there not be a space to live in between what you're asking?
I know quite a bit about living with violence, living without it and the spaces in between.
Either your objective is unclear or you've not phrased your question clearly enough to garner the answer of which you seek.
More suggesting there is something beyond this. Yes, this may be called 'space' by some - eg not reacting to violence within but not having to shutI'm not sure what you're asking!
Are you binary in your seeking of solution?
Or can there not be a space to live in between what you're asking?
I know quite a bit about living with violence, living without it and the spaces in between.
Either your objective is unclear or you've not phrased your question clearly enough to garner the answer of which you seek.
down and pretend either...what could be called empowered freedom...is enjoyable, truly...a state of harmony, unity even.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
More suggesting there is something beyond this. Yes, this may be called 'space' by some - eg not reacting to violence within but not having to shut
down and pretend either...what could be called empowered freedom...is enjoyable, truly...a state of harmony, unity even.
Are you talking about 'a state of zen'...??
not so fussed as to what it 'is called' or not...more like the absence of the question 'violence or non-violence as the way to act?' is a happy place for me to be. Don'tAre you talking about 'a state of zen'...??
always know this for sure but still...
ps maybe 'wholeness' is the best word to describe this - without any sense of lack...but with a felt sense of trusting Life.
Last edited:
A politician might choose to sow seeds of confusion.
Faced with this, an electorate might react in such a way
as to double down on their previous choice -
of being 'for' or 'against' said politician.
Creating more polarisation.
So long as the politician can keep the strength of the 'for' greater than the 'against' -
perhaps by using the words/actions of the 'against' to feed the fervour of the 'for' -
then they will win/maintain the power they seek/hold.
The strategy of 'divide and conquer?'
Machiavellian, even.
So in politics, so in religion.
Different name, same game.
Faced with this, an electorate might react in such a way
as to double down on their previous choice -
of being 'for' or 'against' said politician.
Creating more polarisation.
So long as the politician can keep the strength of the 'for' greater than the 'against' -
perhaps by using the words/actions of the 'against' to feed the fervour of the 'for' -
then they will win/maintain the power they seek/hold.
The strategy of 'divide and conquer?'
Machiavellian, even.
So in politics, so in religion.
Different name, same game.
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
You were reeling a few in arfur lad at one stage. Looks like they've all escaped from your keepnet now. Was good whilst it lasted but I think I've sussed out that this is your secondary account and who you really are; )A politician might choose to sow seeds of confusion.
Faced with this, an electorate might react in such a way
as to double down on their previous choice -
of being 'for' or 'against' said politician.
Creating more polarisation.
So long as the politician can keep the strength of the 'for' greater than the 'against' -
perhaps by using the words/actions of the 'against' to feed the fervour of the 'for' -
then they will win/maintain the power they seek/hold.
The strategy of 'divide and conquer?'
Machiavellian, even.
So in politics, so in religion.
Different name, same game.
You were reeling a few in arfur lad at one stage. Looks like they've all escaped from your keepnet now. Was good whilst it lasted but I think I've sussed out that this is your secondary account and who you really are; )
Its a fair cop. BMR has got you bang to rights.
You better come in quietly.
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
Bimbo?Its a fair cop. BMR has got you bang to rights.
You better come in quietly.
Never trying to 'reel' people in at all. Not of genuine interest for me. Yes, this feels like it has come to the end of its natural cycle. I have come to understand more what the limits of my formal education were and how this might be in conflict with my own continuing education outside what may be called the mainstream. I don't have a secondary account - have barely used this one outside of this thread recently. Like I wrote here a long while back, I was curious as to whether the likes of creative arts, football, 'religion' could come together. To that, I find the answer is yes - just not currently on bluemoon. And so there's the end of that question - such is life.You were reeling a few in arfur lad at one stage. Looks like they've all escaped from your keepnet now. Was good whilst it lasted but I think I've sussed out that this is your secondary account and who you really are; )
Edit : One hypothesis that has come through this thread would be 'An education is truly transformative in nature will bring up confusion to move through. An education that doesn't move through confusion is one in which 'change' is more about keeping things the same. Doesn't matter if this education is scientific, religious, artistic or whatever.' Something for me to be with elsewhere. Enjoy.
Last edited:
https://www.newsweek.com/fifth-forc...-start-hunting-universes-hidden-realm-1145587
"Currently, scientists cannot explain what more than 95 percent of the universe consists of. As a result, they have proposed the existence of hypothetical “dark” forms of energy and matter to help explain the vast gaps in our knowledge.
“We both know an awful lot about the dark universe and very little at the same time,” Ethan Brown, a particle physicist from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, told Newsweek. “Cosmology measurements can tell us precisely how much dark matter and dark energy exist, and astronomical measurements can even tell us a lot how they behave. Yet we do not have any idea what theory underlies either of them."
mysterious, dark, non visible...
Edit : "Furthermore, dark photons could be seen to represent a mysterious new “fifth fundamental force of nature” that is entirely distinct from the four known forces outlined by the Standard Model." What if this could open up solutions for humanity that are not available before this? What if science is not the only field through which t could come to be known?
"Currently, scientists cannot explain what more than 95 percent of the universe consists of. As a result, they have proposed the existence of hypothetical “dark” forms of energy and matter to help explain the vast gaps in our knowledge.
“We both know an awful lot about the dark universe and very little at the same time,” Ethan Brown, a particle physicist from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, told Newsweek. “Cosmology measurements can tell us precisely how much dark matter and dark energy exist, and astronomical measurements can even tell us a lot how they behave. Yet we do not have any idea what theory underlies either of them."
mysterious, dark, non visible...
Edit : "Furthermore, dark photons could be seen to represent a mysterious new “fifth fundamental force of nature” that is entirely distinct from the four known forces outlined by the Standard Model." What if this could open up solutions for humanity that are not available before this? What if science is not the only field through which t could come to be known?
Last edited:
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
https://www.newsweek.com/fifth-forc...-start-hunting-universes-hidden-realm-1145587
"Currently, scientists cannot explain what more than 95 percent of the universe consists of. As a result, they have proposed the existence of hypothetical “dark” forms of energy and matter to help explain the vast gaps in our knowledge.
“We both know an awful lot about the dark universe and very little at the same time,” Ethan Brown, a particle physicist from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, told Newsweek. “Cosmology measurements can tell us precisely how much dark matter and dark energy exist, and astronomical measurements can even tell us a lot how they behave. Yet we do not have any idea what theory underlies either of them."
mysterious, dark, non visible...
Edit : "Furthermore, dark photons could be seen to represent a mysterious new “fifth fundamental force of nature” that is entirely distinct from the four known forces outlined by the Standard Model." What if this could open up solutions for humanity that are not available before this? What if science is not the only field through which t could come to be known?
“Yet we do not have any idea what theory underlies either of them."
The main point if this sentence is the word Yet. In the history of our species it was but a blink of an evolved eye that we didn’t know where the sun went at night. Yet, we now know.
It was even later that most still thought the world was flat and to sail on the ocean would lead to us falling off. Yet now we know.
It was a thought away that disease and plagues were caused by demons, witches and foul air. Yet now we know.
Yet is not an open door for hunches, feelings and a self proclaimed connection with the universe that can never be tested and proven.
I will watch the film you put up Arfur me old mystical salt. I read a bit about it.
Look after yourself. :)
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
Fuck, I had just taken my shoes and socks off. Another burning woo woo spitfire of new age, let’s disappear up our own mystic arses, shoeless, bites real, actual, you can see, dust.
It was even later that most still thought the world was flat and to sail on the ocean would lead to us falling off. Yet now we know
Ahem. While agreeing with your overall point, I can't let this bit go.
There's no evidence for that whatever. Sailors of all people knew the world was round because to prove it all they had to do was climb a mast.
The reason they disliked going out of sight of land was nothing to do with falling off the edge and everything to do with an inability to navigate their way back. A modern example would be setting off in a rocket from earth with no navigation instruments and being told to go out of sight of the earth. You'd say naff off at the very least.
I'm afraid there's a tendency to view people in history as being a bit thick. They weren't.