On a personal level I think most people do this pretty much. I know that in my life I seldom even asked people what their faith or beliefs are when interacting with them. And even if those things came up it was just a quick acknowledgement of each other’s beliefs and then back to the matter at hand.

I think these kinds of issues really only become paramount when it comes to deciding political issues and where public money or effort to be directed on a large scale.

I’ve very rarely found faith and belief to be an issue on a personal level, and the few times that it has happened it was always due to a radical Christian who was making a big deal about religious issues. That’s been my life’s experience.



Some people believe that they have already found truth in a book and they make it very clear that whoever wrote the book has absolute truth and we should be listening to what the book says. The only problem I find with that situation is that the book seem to be quite vague. There are actually quite many people who have this same book and they all seem to disagree on the absolute truth that it supposedly contains.

I will agree that there are many people who also use this same book and don’t claim to understand it’s absolute truth, or they are open-minded enough to realize that its vague and could have different meanings to differnet people and therefore differnet truths for differnet people. The people who view the book in this way are much easier to get along with.

On Faith, Believe and Truth,…

Just for the record, as everyone knows I have a pantheist view of life. To me it is a belief. I do believe that it is true. But I also realize that this is just my ‘belief’ and not a proven fact. Therefore I certainly realize that my belief could be wrong. In fact, I will openly admit that I’m ‘agnostic’ and always must be without absolute proof. I would never try to tell someone else that my belief is true. I will give them the reasons (the arguments) of why I believe it to be true. But I realize that non of my arguments are ‘proofs’.

I could be wrong and the world could be quite different. There’s no doubt about that. We could all be wrong. We could have been created by a great sadistic demon for his own sadistic pleasure for all we know. Anything is possible and the fact is that no one knows. We all ultimately must guess.

Even those who claim to have had the most profound religious and spiritual experiences, or visions can still never be sure of anything because even those experiences could have been created by a sadistic demon who just loves to play with peoples emotions.

No one can say with certainty about the truth of anything. Even if the clouds parted and a God appeared from an apparent tear in the fabric of spacetime and started talking to us in a deep rumbling voice. How could we be certain that this was indeed the God that created us? Maybe it’s an illusion being played on us be other creatures who are so much more highly evolved that us that we just can’t even phantom them.

We can never know anything with absolute certainty. Not even if we die and go to heaven. We can’t even be certain of the ‘truth’ of that illusion any more than we can be certain of the truth of the illusion we are currently in.

Abracabra, I am not sure what it is that you beleive, but what I do see is someone who is wise and full of life and good things. I already know you do not hold to a book as I hold to a book yet I feel we are not so different. You have already come to terms with not beleiving what I do so there is no point to butt heads with you, and I certainy have no desire, for to me my faith is a way of life and I respect that you walk in your faith the same way. I respect both you and your faith. I find no need to challenge it.

We all will never beleive the same thing. I do not think it is a matter of being right but according to the voice that speaks to us inside that says, "in this is life". That is why to seek to be right is not the pursuit of truth. I know to others this does not make sense. That it is life that we seek after, not something to grab hold of in our mind, but that which quickens our spirit. There is something inside of each of us that yearns for this, yet many focus on the physical life, or mental pursuits to fulfil this part of us. It is the same with love, many men are dysfuntional emotionally because of our culture then in turn women become dysfuntional because of the treatment of emotionally impotent men. We have put a wall, a baracade around our emotions, and mostly all we feel is anger, because we are allowed to do so. We try to use logic to undermine emotions not realizing emotions of the heart are just are real as the logic of our brain. So also our spiritual part does not seek logic or reason but something beyond that is life.

What have we heard since our youth. There are two things you do not talk about and that is religion and polictics. Why? Again I think it is that which is in us that seeks to be right rather than to hear and undeerstand each other and each others position than the go from there in acceptance, peace and support, and work together for the good and well-being of both.

I agree... when speaking of 'first times'...





This I cannot completely follow. While I cannot disagree with your sentiment, I feel that it is missing a variable. One's remembrance of that prior experience can happen without conscious reasoning. If that is the case, then one may perceive(recognize) the danger again(in a different manner) without all of the physical sensory input required for the first experience's conclusion... intuitively.

Intuitive perception is not a matter concerning the accuracy of reality, rather it is an accurate reflection of one's accepted truthes, without conscious reasoning.






I absolutely agree here... Perception did not equate the object, however, one's perception did recognize the equation. Should that recognition be without the conscious reasoning of 'walking like' and such, then it would have been intuitive.






That would all depend on how much value I had placed in your ability to establish truth. On how much I believed your word.





Again, you have made some very valid points... and I agree with most of those.

I underlined the 'sticking point' for me in the above quote.

You are speaking purely on the physical and tangible things in life, while leaving out the emotional value. What is the symbol for heartache, sorrow, regret, hate, love, fear, jealousy, etc. etc. All of these things also directly affect one's perception of reality(truth). There are acceptances of truthes within all of us which require no conscious reasoning for reflection. Internalization has no bearing on actual truth. It absolutely determines one's intuition though. What is later learned without conscious reason is that which is subconsciously compared to a prior acceptance and regarded as a known without reason. While the initial reflection is necessary for a measure of what is now being perceived, it may not require conscious reasoning any longer.






I agree, sort of, one's truth is not initially derived from one's perception. However, once the truth has been internalized within one, perception is biased and according to that truth will build upon itself.





Initially speaking, I completely agree with your assessments, however, once truth has been established within one, the contemplative reasoning measures required to internalize these truthes may no longer be a factor. Hence, the intuitive perceptive measures of one without conscious reasoning. Di, I believe that once internalized as truth any given number of observations can and will be perceived(recognized) as truth accordingly.




The reflection of one's accepted truthes(internalizations) is evident in one's intuitive perceptions as well as their perspective.

If one claims that they know that I am angry in a response, regardless of my efforts to clarify this mistaken assumption, that person has placed a measure of value on my emotional state. Their perception of all the variables involved which led to their conclusion(prior to my attempt at clarification) may or may not have been one according to conscious reason. Undeniably, if this was an intuitive measure, meaning without conscious deductive reasoning applied, then it was done so without weighing the most important evidence... my true emotional state. Disregarding my objections to this perceived 'truth', the person indeed trusted their intuitive perception of the truth of the matter at hand.







Di, when one's previous internalizations are the only comparitive measure of truth, one's perception changes accordingly also... it may indeed begin to recognize and assimilate truth(according to internalizations) without further conscious reasoning... intuitively perceiving truth.

No matter of the acurracy...



I so enjoy this exchange of opinions with you...

Certainly not in the details.

However when it comes to whether we both believe in a ‘personified’ God who wrote a rule book , I think this can often been a major source of conflict.

Look at it this way,…

Two people are chosen to be the world leaders. Not of two separate nations, but together as a team they are supposed to lead the world to a better life.

One of them believes in a personified God who wrote a rule book with instructions on how man should live, and this person also believes that this personified God has a master plan and last, but certainly not least, this person also believes that this ancient God is coming back to rule over all men.

The other person may or may not believe in a spiritual entity. However, even if they do, they don’t believe that it wrote any book or that it has any master plan other than to have us live in harmony with nature. That’s the only plan. Just live in harmony with nature and enjoy life to the fullest whilst living in harmony with each other. This is the purpose of life. To serve the spirit by living life the best we possibly can.

At first you might think, “Well there’s no conflict here because the personified God also wants us to live life the best we can in harmony with each other”.

Well, this sounds good on the surface, but when it comes to actually start leading the world we run into problems. And where do these problems come from??? They come from the rule book of this unseen God who is supposed to have a master plan and who is supposedly coming back to judge us all based on this rule book.

So let’s try to move forward anyway. As a free thinker and without any need to adhere to any rule book one leader proclaims that gender should not be a consideration when making a commitment to a monogamous lifestyle, or private personal intimacy.

The second leader steps forward and says, “Oh wait! We can’t do that because it says here in the rule book that this kind of behavior is forbidden. It is sinful and will be judged to be bad. God will be very angry and upset with us if we allow the people to behave this way.

The free thinker is not prepared to accept this rule book and so he turns to the ‘believer’ in this rule book and he says, “Do you have any opinions of your own? Or are you just going to stand around backing up everything in that book?”

The ‘believer’ says, “The book is the word of God I must obey it, for I am a servant of the Lord as he is my Savior”.

The free thinker says, “Alright, loving committed relationships will only be permitted between couples of opposite sex” The crowds begin to yell and complain about these unjust laws, but for the sake of moving forward the free thinker sucks up this first objection.

Then they try to move forward and the free thinker says, “We will provide education and materials for preventing unwanted pregnancies during acts of fornication”.

The believer steps up with his rule book and say, “Oh we can’t do that because it says here that fornication is not allowed and sex is only to be used for procreation. We must insist on abstinence unless a couple has accepted a life long relationship of Holy Matrimony. Only then is sex permitted, and even then it must only be permitted for the purpose of procreation.”

At this point something’s got to give. Either the free thinker is going to have to step aside and let the rule book rule, or the world is going to have to become divided into two separate nations because all the free thinkers in the world just aren’t going to accept this rule book that they don’t believe came from anywhere by ancient authors who had no clue what they were talking about.

Do you see the problem Barry?

It’s just not going to work to try to have free thinkers living side-by-side with people who are trying to follow a rule book that makes outrageous demands. Free thinkers see nothing wrong with enjoying the physical pleasure of intimacy in a loving way without a need for a life long commitment. Free thinkers believe that if two people are emotionally and sensually attracted to each other they should feel free to act on those feelings and not be restrained by a rule book that they don’t personally believe has any merit.

It’s just not going to work to try to get people who believe in free thinking to adhere to a rule book that they don’t believe ever came from any divine source. For them the rule book is just downright unreasonable.

The free thinkers from all around the world are going to rise up and say, “Look, if this supposed spiritual dictator actually exists let him make himself known! Let him step forward and speak for himself! How can we be expected to believe in an entity that no one has ever even scene? We are not going to follow your rule book because we don’t believe that the people who wrote it were divine. We simply don’t believe that this dictating God exists. It’s not that we want to rebel against any such God. How can we rebel against something we don’t even believe exists?

We’re just trying to be reasonable here. We want to establish a decent life based on human compassion, love, and understanding, and we don’t are prepared to let some ancient undereducated superstitious authors make the rules. Because from our point of view that precisely who wrote that book. We simply don’t believe that the book has any connections to divinity in any way.

Sorry, but we just don’t believe that.

That’s where the free thinkers are coming from Barry. It’s not that they refuse to obey God, it’s that they don’t believe that the rule book came from God in the first place. They just don’t believe in the divinity of the Bible. Period. It’s not a matter of being rebellious. It a matter of being reasonable.

This is how I view the whole thing.

These differences in belief are catastrophic when it comes time to live together as a sovereign world.

The bottom line is that you either believe the rule book is divine, or you don’t.

You know that I don’t.

So how can we dream together? My dreams are free thinking. Your dreams are dictated by an unseen dictator. Even if you could show me this dictator I would only be disappointed to know that I now have to live as a slave to a dictatorship. My view of God is totally different. I don’t view God as a dictator. I view God as a symbolic spirit of LOVE. She wants us to have FREE WILL. She doesn’t want to dictate over us.

But if you understand her nature you will also realize that living in harmony is the best way to worship her. Living in harmony is also the best way to get along with each other.

But to force me to follow an ancient manmade rule book that I don’t believe is divine is not living in harmony with me. That’s forcing a dictatorship upon me. A dictatorship that I have absolutely no reason to believe is divine, and neither to YOU!

This is why I see the Bible as being such a detrimental thing to humanity. We’ll never be able to move forward in harmony if people continue to insist that we live under the dictation of ancient superstitious men.

Abracabra,
I agree with you. I do not beleive that governemtn should ever step over the boundary of faith and creed. Government is for the order and service to its people. I am against laws that mandate that others should beleive in a God because they are part of a Christian nation. I do not beleive there is a concept of a chrisitan nation. Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world. Yet there can be a Christian leader who serves the people, just as there could be a nonChristian leader, who seek to serve the people. This is a country based on religious freedom not on Chrisitianity.

It does not bother me if they take out "one nation under God" yet it does not bother me that it is there. It really has no bearing on the life of people. I do not beleive you should force moral and religious codes on others who may have different opinions. I beleive that our faith is one according to lifestyle, according to an inner walk, according to love and transformation. I beleive that my faith does not put me in opposition to others. I am for their religious freedom just as much as I am for my own.

I often think there are those here who misunderstand me. When I mention a scripture or some teaching it is to see another prespective which others can have to maybe understand something in a different manner. I am not saying that it is right fror them but that it is a way, a path an understanding that I live by which helps me. I will speak to Chrisitains in a way I would not speak to non-Christians. For me to write that I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live but Christ iveth in me and the life that I now live I live by faith in the son of God who died and gave Himself up for me. This would not really be relevant to you, perhaps from your background you might understand its meaning yet if I were to write: But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. You would possibly see that there is little difference the outcome of wisdom.

You are not a Christian yet you are wise; you are not a Christian yet to me you are more like a brother than most who are of my belief. Our walk is closer and our thinking is closer. I respect what you beleive and that it is what you who you are. I could say the same for Dragoness, I appreciate all the things that she says and her insights. I think we are all good for one another. I am on no crusade. The message of Christ is the Gospel of peace. Above all else I only seek to be a friend. I am here under no secret agenda. I wish you peace, perhaps do not look at me as a Christian but as a follower of Christ. His way is how I wish to live my life, not to impose my beleifs on others.

I fullyunderstand this Mind. I’m just trying to explain why Christianity can be a problem in general. And often is.

I believe that you and I could live together in the world without conflict because you understand that faith is a personal conviction and should not be placed into government or used as a means to tell other people how they should live their lives.

Just as you are misunderstood as a Chrisitan, I am misunderstood in my objections to “Christianity” as an “Organized Religion”.

I have no problem with Christians in general. Most Christians I actually meet in-person in real life are indeed liberal in their beliefs and do not wish to push their moral beliefs onto other people.

If you notice in the forums I never argue with sane people.

By that I mean, that all of my objections on the forums are aimed at religious fundamentalist and more specifically my actually “arguments’ are with verbatim fundamentalists who are trying to sell a verbatim interpretation of the Bible (their own personal verbatim interpretations) as though they are the unquestioned word of God.

I don’t go around the forum harassing people like you just because you believe in Christianity.

I think it’s great that you want to follow the teachings of Jesus. He was a great figure and inspiration. I would never want to take that away from you. I admire and respect Jesus and what he taught. I will bow my head with you in a revenant moment of silence in memory of Jesus and in with the ‘prayer’ that his spirit will live forever in the hearts and minds of men.

I will do this thinking of him as a man, as a child of the universe, as an incarnation of God. But not the sole incarnation of God. If you have a different perspective on who and what he was I can respect that. I don’t need to share that belief to respect it.

I would even help you build a memorial to him. I only ask that, just as I respect your belief that he was the sole incarnation of God, you respect my belief that he was one of many children of God.

I have nothing against followers of Jesus. I think that’s great. I respect his spirit too. But that doesn’t soften my heart when it comes to verbatim fundamentalists who think they speak for Jesus. To me, they are nothing more than arrogant egotists who have sorely lost their way. No matter if they do have good intentions. They are still harmful to what Jesus actually taught. They are harmful to humanity in general.