Prateyka,

It is true that I see no need for organized religion and to suggest that because a person isn't following your way they will fall into moral relativism makes little sense to me. Anyone can fall into it. Plenty of people who are staunchly aligned with their religions practice moral relativism and the Christians are some of the worst. Look at most any war fought in the last 2000 years.

And as far as Jesus actually saying the things he is associated with, I just don't know. Why  didn't he write something down or at least one of the disciples? No one from the period (I'm aware of the Luke and Mark argument, but there is no solid proof that Luke wasn't at least 60 to 80 years removed from the source.) In just a year after someone's death a lot of things can get blurred. We are talking about a book that had stories passed down verbally for thousands of years before putting the pen to paper on this stuff. Relying on it above your own mind which is truly the greatest and most reasoning gift we are given in this life to me seems ludicrous. We are training to be greater than we are, not training to be sheep. And we may already be greater than we are and simply come down here to get a breather from being gods. I find being open to the possibilities much more rewarding than trying to pin everything on ideas that predate me and my own take on it.

I don't quite understand how a movie of Jesus saying these things would make much difference to me. 'Love your neighbor as yourself"--he may have said that, he certainly wasn't the first to say it but since it reflects the golden rule I have to say that it is beautiful. I believe he also said "love the lord your God with all your heart"... I have no problem with that as long as no one gets to define God for me.

You call me disengaged but I say it is the people who follow who are disengaged...from thinking and to me that is what a consciousness is for. My proofs don't have to be scientific, but they have to resonate with the core of my being. "Why am I like this?" That's what I wonder and in a deep meditation I get an answer. I don't fly out of my body much, but my dreams are more vivid when I'm thinking for myself than when I am taking on someone else's ideas without putting them through my own truth o meter.

I know I get rather hostile when organized religion comes up, but there are things about Christianity that are good, but those things are not original to the religion and I am seeking the source if I am going back 2000 years then I am going back 10000 years or even 20000. To me, going back there is coughing up the same old answers that haven't gotten the job done.
If Jesus comes back AND he embraces the Christian Religion (Which I highly doubt--no offense meant to anyone) AND he tells me he is the son of God (and I"m not taking about some guy in Venezeula with his own talk show) I will reconsider my stance.
My problem is not with the idea of Jesus, it's with the portrayal of Jesus in the story of his life by people who never knew him.
If we write a book or make a movie about someone famous even today with all our world wide communication we still don't get it right. The urge to make the story entertaining will always win out over the truth. I learned valuable lessons from Robin Hood too. I'm just saying.

In a sense our true reasoning is difficult because it is so simply digital if you think about it. A whole bunch of yes/nos to reach an understanding. If we accept someone else's YES without open minded skepticism then we are cheating ourselves of a vast learning experience which will lead to our own understanding. I try not to think of my process as educating others but of being an example of that open minded skepticism. Then that process becomes a collaborative effort of an ensemble (to use yet another acting term). I just find theatre to be the best metaphor for spiritual understanding and through that understanding comes the growth whether it agrees with someone else or not.

Very true Stone,

I think there does reach a point where we have to accept that some people have a smaller or larger decision space for enlightenment then we do and we have to privately acknowledge that and move on with the hope that we can increase our own awareness by recognizing those with the larger decision space. There in lies the rub for me.

And I'm also holding out some hope to all the information I've found which suggests the 2012 thing is actually just the events taking place now and to come in order to increase the consciousness of many, many others.

And in response to the length of time it took to create the world, I've been told it states in the Bible or somewhere that one Earth day is equivalent to like 1000 years in eternity. It feels just like 1 day, but hell I don't know. I ignored the statement and didn't acquire the knowledge haha. But either way I've always thought of that and figured one day to God was not like one day to us.

Also hawkeye, I think your entire statement is right on the money. But I also ask "why is this way?" It's pretty obvious. Humanity. Humanity. Humanity. NOT God. That's the whole damn point and problem with religion. It is humanity's doing. Every single thing that made us go "wait...thats not right" was because some jackass human wrote it that way to establish order by their will. This doesn't just occur in religion. Governments as well. The governments do crap that doesn't make any sense all of the time. It's not for the good of humanity, it's for the good of their power and their control or how it benefits all of the sins running rampant.

I believe God has left part of itself in many aspects of the world, including religion. But its greatest desire is not for us to discover through conventional means. I could not be more confident in understanding that. I know it to be true.

But I must also profess my theory which has been with me for some time. As it brings a good question this thread. Are you looking for evidence of our creator, or are you more interested in the nature of our creator?

My theory for some time has been that "God" is inconceivable. We can come to an understanding of its existence, but never its nature in this life. That nature is beyond the power of our imagination. Now that my friends...is a magnificent entity.

But while this is my theory, it is not a theory I enjoy. I actually have hope that our creator is of a conceivable nature. That its presence is possible of sustaining in the mind. But then this hope brings to me another theory. Is God and our creator the same entity? Perhaps our creator is of a conceivable nature, and its creator is not. Things to think about.

Stone and Beau:
I have read the first essay, and found all of the arguments weak and answerable.  It's interesting how I've actually refuted a lot of Russel's arguments in this thread and it doesn't really matter, does it?  I guess people have pretty well defined belief systems, and honestly I think there are people on this site who claim to be open to discovering any truth they can on their own but the reality is, that is not the case.  I think Beau and Stone should be more honest with themselves and anyone; they are interested in exploring any ideas that don't have to do with Christianity or have similar explanations.  My point is, isn't that excluding a huge possibility?  I understand; here come the responses - fear, oppression, history, evil.  My final response?  Don't pretend to be as open minded as you think you are, because at the end of the day you won't accept anything that might trigger emotional hangups concerning your hatred of organized religion.  If fluffy bunnies exist outside of this realm, and beam down thoughts through aliens, and it doesn't involve a church group, than its plausible.  At the end of the day, everyone is free to make up their own minds, no matter what the limits are that are placed on their thinking.  Lastly, I want to briefly mention something I get into Hawkeye about down below a little more clearly:  I am not arguing on behalf of organized religion.  I think the knee jerk reactions I'm getting are kind of tiresome.  I know organized religion sucks many times, and most of the people on this board hate it.  I get it.  I'm not arguing for organized religion.  Actually I believe myself to be pretty open minded as well.  I have read the Koran.  And the Bhaghavad Gita.  And translated the Lotus Sutra for a graduate class.  And earned degrees in both science and religion.  But because I also think Jesus is cool, I'm not thinking freely enough, or discovering enough on my own.  I get it.  Charge ahead bravely on your own path I guess, because I'm such a cookie cutter Christian who is just mindlessly following along as a sheep with no thought put into anything.

Hawkeye:  You miss the point that I made earlier about sociobiology reducing into moral relativism, and illustrate it beautifully with the statement Quote:
  There is the moral relativism.  If you take that and run with it to extremes, the concept breaks down.  Because there is absolutely no way to arbitrate between groups of conflicting beliefs, and because the majority can oppress the minority.  For instance:  the German people as led by the Nazi's believed that Jews were inferior forms of humanity and needed to be wiped out.  In their society, it was acceptable to torture and kill Jews.  Most of humanity would agree from their standpoint that this is wrong.  But if there is no God, then there is no way to justify this.  In other words, if there is no God, society simply determines right and wrong, and society can be very, very twisted and evil.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong, if we accept your worldview, with putting 12 million people through torture and genocide.  However, I would say the moral conscience that most people have would argue against this.  You may disagree, and consider that you do then live in a universe where might makes right, the minority can always be exploited, and there is nothing that is absolutely wrong and right.  Anything that you consider to be good could be made evil by some society, and vice versa.  The paradigm becomes madness.

Quote:
  A couple things here.  First I'm not sure where you are getting this idea because I don't argue nor believe that assertion.  The most moral friend I have is not a Christian.  Secondly, how are you judging someone to be good?  By what standards?  I would argue that in your belief system there is no absolute standard of good or evil, and honestly there is no way for you to judge someone as being 'good' or 'evil'.  One society's version of good could be one other society's version of evil.

Quote:
Again, you are fighting a straw man here.  I never argue for following some belief system blindly.  I think skepticism is good.  However I don't think skepticism alone will work.  At some point we must make a choice based on the preponderance of evidence.

Quote:
I am about to give up on this discussion because its so ridiculous.  Please address my points, or read what I say, or quit arguing against things I wouldn't say.  Of course these actions are evil.  Sigh.  My point, if you can read what I've written, is that we have some free will currently.  And there is evil.  And God could put a stop to the evil, such as abuse of children, but that would put a stop to the free will on Earth.  God has chosen to allow it for the time being, and so that shows that God values our ability to make choices, so much so that he is willing to allow evil for the time being.  That doesn't make abuse right, or mean that God wants people to abuse others, or that I'm arguing that raping babies is what we should all do.  So for the time being, we are all on this ship of Earth together mixed in - good, bad and in between, which is what makes this mode of existence special, and we have some degree of free will.

You, others on this thread, are not arguing with my points, you are arguing with my imaginary points.  I am not here to defend religion.  Is that clear?  I am making belief statements based on science, history, and philosophy that can be reasoned for or against using logic.  I haven't argued anywhere that someone should go to church or pay money to some group, or raping kids in the name of God is good.  If you continue to use the straw man fallacy there is no point in me answering any more, seriously.

pratekya,

"And there is evil.  And God could put a stop to the evil, such as abuse of children, but that would put a stop to the free will on Earth.  God has chosen to allow it for the time being, and so that shows that God values our ability to make choices, so much so that he is willing to allow evil for the time being.  That doesn't make abuse right, or mean that God wants people to abuse others, or that I'm arguing that raping babies is what we should all do."

My pet project is allowance - I very much would like to understand this concept fully and completely - freedom within limits. I reckon one element of freedom is consent. When dealing with child abuse, my view gets very black and white - it's extremely non-consentual. Any adult talking about consent in the regards to sex with a kid I'd say have repressed and twisted their sexuality to the point of being extremely dark and destructive. It's horrificly wrong, and I don't need a god to see that. I've read numerous times of religious and non-religious people going into those terrerories, so religion/belief in a god doesn't automatically eliminate perversion. And in the case of child abuse, that's one area where I think turning the other cheek enable pervs to do what they do, because in that line of thinking limits are removed.

In the case of beliefs, as long as they don't restrict others' freedom by opposing consent, and by forcing others to believe the same, happy go lucky. You speak about being open minded and then this comes along "If fluffy bunnies exist outside of this realm, and beam down thoughts through aliens, and it doesn't involve a church group, than its plausible" - and examplify likes and dislikes still apply when stating one is open minded.

Can't speak for others - which to seem to be popular: I have realized that I do shake off belief structures, I have shaken off, and it would surprise me if I didn't encounter both major and minor belief structure shake-offs in the contiuation of my path. To some extent, that seem to be one of the functions of the "afterlife".

The Golden Rule works perfectly well without embellishment. The way I see, the Ten Commandments break the Golden Rule. Once you make a law you render the one RULE meaningless. The Golden Rule encourages open mindedness. You can make that Nazi argument all you like as it has been made hundreds of times on this board, but the Germans did what they did for fear of their own lives being taken if they didn't. We can see this mentality other places in the world today. It is happening. I am not saying that open mindedness makes living in a physical world easier or safer, but I am saying that it that in my own personal case it has made my spiritual decisions my own.

I take no issue with other ways but they are not my ways and if I give an opinion that is what it is. I think Jesus MAY have existed, but I see within the bible definite character inconsistencies within Jesus. Again, my opinion. I don't think he would  have claimed to be more than me. I see that as an invention of the church to control the masses. And mostly I see the Bible as a means of control. Every one has their own path. No one will ultimately follow anyone else's path. They may try but it is impossible to do it because we all have the ability to reason for ourselves and I'm sure there is a reason for that.

My comments are not against you, they are FOR me.

Hi Beau,

I think I know what you mean by the golden rule but can you reiterate what it means for you ? Thanks.

Dave