Freedom said:

It is so fucking bizarre not only do people pretend to believe religions, but they completely fail to understand the implications of that belief.

That is, most christians belief this incredible story about jesus and on and on but have spent hardly any time trying to understand what it means. Stupid dull minds, believing an awesome fantastic story, concerned with their bald spot and finger nail polish...

---

Freedom said:

I think the first instant of perception is 'pure'. But the second instant the perception becomes associated with memory. Most memory is colored by good and bad, desire and fear. Pushes the mind stream around...

---

Quote:

What I mean is that there is perception, and this is reality.Illogical conclusions from that perception is fantasy.

---

Quote:

But most Christians don't claim to see god, or hear god. They just interpret weird shit as signs from god and miracles and they do this illogically.

---

Brainstem said:

All the religions of the world are based on the direct, first-hand experience of GOD by individuals. These prominent people Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and so on, had personal subjective experiences which we cannot prove or disprove. My question is this, Does trying to disseminate and make defining statements about these experiences immediately devalue the importance of the personal first-hand experience and any insight gained ? My opinion is that you can put down institutional religions all day, but the sources of these religions and the first-hand experience of GOD, may be subjective, but so are so many other things that we still credit as valuable, and I think that it is in communicating the experience that the significance is lost.

---

Quote:

"Perhaps the Tibetans really see," don Juan went on, "in which case they must have realized that what they
see makes no sense at all and they wrote that bunch of crap because it doesn't make any difference to them; in
which case what they wrote is not crap at all."

---

Quote:

"The nagual moves the assemblage point, and yet it is not he himself who does the actual
moving," don Juan said. "Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the spirit expresses
itself in accordance with the nagual's impeccability. The spirit can move the assemblage point
with the mere presence of an impeccable nagual."

---

to put this in a religious context, let's say that Jesus is a spiritual guide. If I were to take every one of Jesus', or likewise, Don Juan's words, at face value, I would be lost. I would be assuming that every one of his words were truth simply because he were the guide. But really, a good guide knows he cannot make you understand, he can only help to provide the right context in which you understand for yourself.

sometimes, guides will even trick you on purpose just so that you come to understand that like you, they are only human, not the ultimate "word of God." They can provide incredibly valuable catalysts, but if they are a good guide, truly they want you to see for yourself, not just accept everything they say as truth. That doesn't mean they can't speak truth, but it is much better when you learn to see for yourself, as opposed to accepting a sequence of words as ultimate truth

that is also why, imo, the more profound song lyrics never say directly or literally what they mean. You have to arrive for yourself at their meaning...the words provide the jolt, but really it is you who are seeing things for yourself


If only religion were more like that. I can't be sure, but sometimes I think Jesus, assuming he was real, really had some damn good things to say, probably more on the abstract side, and over time they have been turned into something else, made even worse by the fact that people take these words literally and haphazardly accept them as the ultimate word of God.

I think communicating the experience doesn't necessarily in itself take away the significance...it's only when the words are taken literally and at face value, or accepted without question. Of course, the words don't compare to the experience, but I do know that words can be incredibly valuable. But words, like paintings, or music, are only catalysts, not the all-encompassing definitive truth


there's probably holes in my statements but fuck it, its 4 AM

Quote:

people fail to try to find that direct first-hand experience of god

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

people fail to try to find that direct first-hand experience of god

---

So you have had a first-hand experience of God?

---

further reason why words should not be taken so literally and at face value

you either don't understand what I mean, which I actually kind of doubt, but
or you are just trying to antagonize

but I definitely don't mean "God" in the religious sense, just being...people don't need the medium of scripture or religion between themselves and being/perceiving

Icelander said:

While there may be a reality we aren't capable of knowing it for certain.

---