Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site sysvis Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!sysvis!george From: george@sysvis Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Religious Freedom: Can you grok it? Message-ID: <-145727677@sysvis> Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 15:41:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sysvis.-145727677 Posted: Fri Sep 13 15:41:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 05:41:39 EDT Lines: 188 Nf-ID: #N:sysvis:-145727677:000:12761 Nf-From: sysvis!george Sep 13 14:41:00 1985 This note/article is a compendium of comment, relevant to several recent discussions of "general religious interest" in this group. It is a call for true religious freedom and an indictment of some "godmen". Before replying publicly, or to me personally, first read it all the way through to get its totality of meaning. I also wish to `open up' some new areas of discussion on this public religion network of ideas. It seems to me that most of this group's discussion consists of "person-A" wanting to decide for "person(s)-B" exactly what should and should not be allowed as a thought or else what is to be taught (and also withheld) in various institutional and personal settings. This first occurs whenever "person-A" is not trying to overwhelm the others with dogmatic whips and various sorts of other religious and non-religious tautologies (Angels dancing on heads of pins, the existence/nonexistence of God, etc.). I would imagine that most readers, like myself, are mostly "underwhelmed" by these stylized rantings. They are certainly based on a total disregard for any religious freedom, except that of the speaker. I must assume that those people who are discussing these topics are so enlightened and so moral, etc. that they, in particular, are capable of deciding for the "masses" what exactly is to be done. (This is really a form of "preacherism", as discussed later). I would suggest that each of these "persons-A" might be much better off to question their own `beliefs' and, in so doing, to try to develop their own relationship with their own personal experience of God as they see fit. (And while doing this, leaving others to do the same thing!) Is this not what is meant by freedom of religion in a free society? Atheists are guided only by the lack (want?) of a personal experience of God in their own `belief' system. All things happen in time. Most of all, it is wiser to be tolerant and patient of others' beliefs, while recognizing them for exactly what they are. Blind `beliefs' in theism or atheism serve no useful purpose on the road to finding personal truth. i.e. "Faith" is an active pursuit, not a belief (check it out). So far as parenting the children goes, I would hope that the most valuable thing that a parent/school/church could teach a child was to think for him or her self. This is the best way to keep them from being duped by the likes of James Jones (Guiana) or Jerry Falwell. Is this unrealistic to have as a goal? I hope not. Aren't the highest moral and ethical standards main- tained by those people who develop *themselves* by thinking through, and *questioning*, every facet of their own life and behavior (and the behavior of their examples [heroes, parents, clergy, etc.]). Blind "followership" via its perpetrators/adherents is the one method by which the most heinous crimes against morals, ethics, and humanity have been perpetrated by "leaders of `the faith'" throughout history (*all* `faiths' which are `beliefs' and not actions -- vis a vis, Nazi Germany, Khomeni, The Inquisition, etc.). Do you all get this message? Godmen package and merchandise fear and IGNORANCE. (Satan/sword = fear.) "... There are only two ways to lead, by whip and by example. Of these, the latter is the much preferred method. ..." (Sun-Tzu). If you have any personal feelings about the James Jones cult massacre, would you be interested in determining just how it occurred so that history doesn't repeat itself (or would you rather just `trust' someone else to analyze it for you?). How are James Jones (pre-massacre in U.S.) and Jerry Falwell different? In what ways are they similar? identical? It would certainly be easier if all of these institutions and groups were interested in teaching about *all aspects* of a possible truth so that their minions could `self-act'ualize themselves. Tolerance, understanding, and particularly truth, are not well developed in an area where dogma rules supreme. Were any of the major religions of the world FOUNDED for any purpose except that of its members achieving *self-actualization*? No, not really. Knowing oneself is the best way to know others, including the knowledge of one's own god(s). Not knowing oneself is the best reason to adopt the religious packages of the godmen, one is fearful/unsure of his own knowledge. To be unsure of one's own knowledge is a healthy outlook. Why is it forbidden to openly discuss some subjects? Is there fear of the truth? Does one see something in the truth that one doesn't wish to see? Or is it that the truth might expose some lies? (it usually does.) Rather than arguing back and forth about religious & anti-religious dogma in this note group, would it not be better to share with others one's OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS in the long search for truth? It should be a lot more interesting and a lot less sophomoric to do so. Unfortunately, this group has been reminding me of late of several scenes from Monty Python's _Life of Brian_ wherein the "followers" misinterpret "signs" from the (mistaken) "holy one". Their misinterpretations (in the movie) seem to be mostly of their own making because they choose not to question their own beliefs, nor especially, what they have "been told". On top of this, the "followers" themselves cannot even tell each other something without confusing the idea. It is painfully obvious to me that these scenes were (very well) made to be as ridiculous as possible so as to make these points incisively without totally offending the audiences. Have any of you actually *questioned* your own beliefs lately? (please check the dictionary on `belief'.) Have you come up with your own answers? If so, good, and well done. I commend you. Now, continue your own search and leave others to do the same. "The best way to decide whether a source is a good one is to see if it claims to be the only source or the oracle of the only source. If such claims are made, it is false." This is a direct slam at godmen, "preacherism" or "priesthood" (The super-parent complex), wherein the "masses" are regarded as `less than able' to make up their own minds about religious (and usually money) matters and can only be "guided" by professional godmen (Who are chosen and educated by themselves in self-perpetuating clois- ters). What is a heretic anyway? A Philistine? A Samaritan? What exactly is a Galatian? (Gaul(France)? Gael(Scotland)?) Who classified these people into these groups and sub-groups? Why? Who really discovered America? I am *not* saying that there isn't a spirit of wanting to `help' in some individuals who are members of the godman profession. (By the way, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Gautama Bhudda, etc. were all self-proclaimed TEACHERS, not priests. They were usually at odds with the godmen of their times, and "cults" of "new religions" formed around them). Some of the godmen are very able souls and deserve to be listened to as teachers, not indicted as rabble rousers. If all of the population were to suddenly think things through for themselves and arrive at a personal knowledge of God, the godmen would no longer be needed (or monetarily supported). Now isn't that a heretical statement and a threatening (to the godmen) idea? -- As an aside, this same concept works in all aspects of `professional' environments -- Doctors, Engineers, Congressmen, gurus, etc. The ones who change the professions ("break through", as it were) are the ones who question the then current dogmas.) The real lesson in all of this is not to use packaged dogma as an excuse-for/shield-against one's own personal ignorance on any subject. Just admit that you don't know, and then proceed to look for the answers from enough sources so that you are personally convinced of its truth value. There are a tremendous number of very weighty problems abounding for one who wishes to look for them and for one who is not afraid to find their ans- wers. Maybe you should find out for yourself that "The Trinity" was added to christianity as a religious tautology in order to `explain' the beingness of Jesus Christ. The concept of "The Trinity" (or "virgin birth") was not taught by Jesus himself, only much later did it appear, from the godmen. The bibli- cal word "christ" has been explained in this group before, but is not the basis of catholic (small `c' in front of catholic is intentional--dictionary) Christianity that one should attempt to achieve the christ spirit in one's own self? If so, then what is basis upon which one can develop in that way? Is it love? tolerance? quest-for-truth? or what exactly? I am not forgetting the Mormon, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Shinto, or whatever religious communities. Each of these religions has the same basis (self-actualization) and the rest of the discussion is to which godman-dogma-package is most acceptable to the `True Believer' (a.k.a. Eric Hoffer's book with this title). Can any of you publicly or privately help out someone else (as a teacher) who hasn't yet found that his own tautology is based on a `belief' that is questionable, at best? Can you do this in this notes group so that you are not attacking others and their religious freedom? In doing so, you are each helping the other to arrive at a personal solution. Or is it that you are all just going to be "philistines?" What gives? I say, "Teach it all, everywhere. That is, if you are personally capable of doing so in a manner that doesn't impinge on other people's (religious) freedom of ideas." Will any of you say that any subject is too brazen to be discussed? Why? What is the `belief' upon which you base this religious censorship? One other thought. The (gross) etymology of the word `religion' is: latin: re (prefix meaning "again" as in once more) latin: lig.. (verb, meaning "bind together" [same root as "lignite"]) latin: io (declension suffix for first person of verb lig..) So, "Bind YOURSELF together AGAIN." (an action word, not a belief). What's keeping you from (the?) true religion as taught by history's main teachers and best examples? Where/What is `The Way'? How did you get `unbound'? Why is there a separate (underground?) mail group called "New Age". Were these people hooted off the net for discussing (wrong) topics not considered `religious' in nature by this group? Or did they leave voluntarily because they were no longer interested in being smeared with dogma? I personally welcome any discussion, new age or old, that adds to the base of knowledge in any way. Why is there a separate cult? Do you `new agers' have anything to add here? What is it? (Everyone reading this article, that belongs to any church, belongs to a group that now or earlier was known as a cult.) Why do people insist that opening a sentence with an "I/We/They believe that" (good rounded vowels) is not a mockery of an open discussion and truth seek- ing? An opportunity to present dogma instead of thought or experience? Spare us from Your/Their `beliefs', please. Lastly, do any of you care? Or are you just `blind followers' and `true believers' of some convenient (for you) dogma? Let's hear from someone on some topics of real interest. i.e. open for dis- cussion. Where exactly, did the "lost tribes of Israel" get lost? Did they lose themselves? Did anyone find them? How many people were involved in this lossage? What was Gautama Bhudda's main thrust in his teaching? Why? Where did Jesus go for the 19 undocumented years of his life? What do the Mormons believe that makes them different from the rest of Christianity? The Baptists? What are Zen Bhuddists? What do Moonies and ... (in Antelope, Oregon) actually `believe'? Does the Revelation of St. John apply to any of this Middle East war stuff? Come on, surely someone can help on some of these things. Are you only able to discuss quantities of angels on heads of pins? Are you empty of any answers to questions outside of the `word'? What are the real questions? Can you discuss any of these things without being ridiculous or humorous in your `sharing' of them. Ridicule and humor are all based on hostility and the personal rejection of the topic/situation being made fun of. This is not what is intended here in this notes group. Is it? ...ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george (George Robertson) Obviously, these thoughts are mine and mine alone. No one else shares responsibility for their content. I'm sure that some of the `godmen' won't like them at all. "If it doesn't agree with the dogma, it must be from Satan." (Excluding Milton's fiction, just who is this Satan person anyway? [I have met `the enemy' (fear again) and he is ___. ] Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com