Hijacked.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Original Poster.

I thought OP referred to the original post, which is the first post on the thread subject.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
I admit my reading is incomplete and sketchy, but I am aware of more than just that one verse in the New Testament. I started by reading the four gospels and couldn't read any more for a few years... I was stunned to discover how some denominations have actually gone to the trouble of doing the opposite of what Jesus was saying. Like "call no man your fat to sort through, about 60 or more years worth of junk up there in my attic.

Hi there,

What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Velns
Hi there,

What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?

Thanks.

Galveston will be pleased now that you have someone else to harass.

Originally posted by lemon lime
As near as I can tell, the topic (OP) here has to with hijacking a forum that is being swamped and controled by people who naturally oppose the idea of spirituality. To be fair the atheists feel they are being put upon as well, the only difference being they seem to think the science forum is the natural home for atheism. I don't think so, I think if ther osed to define a group that defines itself by what they [b]don't believe?[/b]

Since its inception (long before the Science Forum), the Spirituality Forum has also been the de facto philosophy forum—perhaps partly because there were a number of posters back then discussing and debating topics of religious philosophy (e.g., the philosophical foundations of religion), as distinct from, say, theology or scriptural exegesis or particular religious doctrines; some of those people have been, and are, atheists generally. It has never been the “religion forum” per se, and there are different understandings of “spirituality” (the forum description notwithstanding)—e.g. by Buddhists and Taoists—some of which do not entail theism. We have also discussed alternative understandings of theos, e.g. among the ancient Stoics.

I suppose that, for those of us who were here at the time (e.g., myself and Rajk, just for two who have posted on this thread, as well as others who are still here), little really seemed to change, except that arguments and discussions of politics, economics and world affairs generally stayed in the Debates Forum—that is, we continued on here pretty much as before, addressing the same topics we always had. Bbarr continued his complex debates on religious philosophy and ethics with lucifershammer (Jesuit), for example, from which a lot of us learned much. Over the years, I have argued from a number of religious perspectives as well as philosophical ones (I am a nondualist—particularly from Zen Buddhist and Jewish perspectives, as well as that of the Sufis—and have really only taken an atheist stance vis-à-vis specific conceptions of god); and LemonJello has studied and presented a number of theological views, and debated them as such without bringing atheism into it.

In the course of all that, there always were, and still are, theist-atheist debates. Again, for those of us who continued on here after the Debates-Spirituality split, little really seemed to change.

Incidentally, one of the most vocal opponents of the split was an atheist who thought it was discriminatory—against the theists.

Perhaps all that clears up some confusion as to why this place sometimes seems like such a hodge-podge. 🙂

_________________________________________

EDIT: I think that my posts just on this thread (as well as in other responses to Dasa--most recently on the "Dasa-Divine Grace-Islam" thread)--show that I, for one, am not "naturally opposed to spirituality". I do argue against conflating "spirituality" and religion or theism.

Originally posted by Velns
Hi there,

What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?

Thanks.

For years I thought Christianity was very simple and easy to understand. The very first service I walked into (a long time ago, the early 70's) was probably the worst example of a group pretending to be spiritual, and it made me realise what I was up against... someone had told me it was a place that welcomed Christians, so I wanted to hear for myself what they had to say. I felt like a fool who had been suckered in, because the place was actually run by the Moonies.

I immediately recognized it for what it is... it was con game, drawing people in who were searching for something real, but who had very little knowledge of the religion they had grown up in. There were pictures on the wall representing Christianity, as well as other religions... it was as though the visual representations were purposefully put up there for drawing in people who could relate to it because of their upbringing, but it was obvious to me it was simply being used as bait.

I didn't grow up in a church family, the only time we went to church was so my mother could appear before people she respected... a pretty sad way to grow up, but at least I learned how to be skeptical and recognise potential problems with belief systems... but atheists often go too far with this attitude and will assume all believers in God are either self deluded or intentionally using religion as a means to deceive and control other people. Atheists have a point, but their point can also become a simple minded belief in itself, and can result in self delusion and self serving deceit.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but to understand my answer and where I'm coming from I thought it might be a good idea to tell you a little bit about myself first. I really don't want to offend anyone, but the fact is when I read the New Testament and closely examine what Jesus said and did, it's obvious to me (like I said, I didn't grow up in that environment) that many denominations I have visited and the people I've talked to (representing those denominations) don't actually know much about their own religion. They call themselves Christians, but Christ seems to be the last person they will model themselves after. I have also talked to people who do know and do practice what they preach, and if it wasn't for them I would have probably given up on it altogether.


So to make a short story long... that pretty much sums it up.

Originally posted by vistesd
Since its inception (long before the Science Forum), the Spirituality Forum has also been the de facto philosophy forum—perhaps partly because there were a number of posters back then discussing and debating topics of religious philosophy (e.g., the philosophical foundations of religion), as distinct from, say, theology or scriptural exegesis or parti ...[text shortened]... ed to spirituality". I do argue against conflating "spirituality" and religion or theism.

Good answer, but now I'll have to go and look up the word conflated. It's not often I run into a word I haven't see before, but that's a good thing... I'll gladly take almost anything to relieve the bordom of seeing the same tired old answers over and over again.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Original Poster.

Okay... opening post or poster, either way that makes sense. I assumed it meant something more formal (like premise) because it doesn't make sense for so many people to complain about straying from "the topic", which is presumably represented by the opening post. Some of the best threads I've read here end up having little or nothing to do with the opening post, so I assumed the opening post was more of a starting point than strictly a topic that MUST be adhered to.

Originally posted by Velns
Hi there,

What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?

Thanks.

I agree. The main purpose I post here is to offend everyone that does not believe as I do.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree. The main purpose I post here is to offend everyone that does not believe as I do.

The Instructor

Also, your use of the English language is offensive. THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE AS I DO?

Originally posted by vistesd
Here is a similar view to that of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, by the Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan. Although Inayat held lineage in more than one traditional Muslim Sufi tariqas, he also founded the universal (universalist) Sufi movement—

Inayat began a tour of the sacred sites across India, and early in that adventure, he met th ...[text shortened]... oted nondualists here; I believe that Swami Prabhupada’s Vedanta is dualist, however.

This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.

If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.

Why would I do this.???

Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)

Islam is not an authentic religion / and you would not know this because you do not know the difference between true religion and false religion.

Islam was spread throughout the world by rape/plundering and pillaging / torture/murder/slavery etc

Islam does not possess higher knowledge and it has never been peaceful for the last 1400 years.

Islam in reality is a political fascist ideology (nothing else and nothing more)

Prabhupada and this man are as different as black is to white.

The facts are: nondualism is impersonalism and impersonalism is atheisms.

Inayat is an atheist.

You are putting this cheater and fake holy man on a pedestal and you are doing this because you have no clue what you're doing.

You do not know the difference between true relgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.

Originally posted by Dasa
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.

If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.

Why would I do this.???

Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)

Islam is not an authentic reli ...[text shortened]... lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.

What do you mean, 'non-dual' means atheist?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Good answer, but now I'll have to go and look up the word conflated. It's not often I run into a word I haven't see before, but that's a good thing... I'll gladly take almost anything to relieve the bordom of seeing the same tired old answers over and over again.

Conflated just means blended together, mixed.

Originally posted by Dasa
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.

If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.

Why would I do this.???

Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)

Islam is not an authentic reli lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.

It is you who, in your ignorance and your pretence of knowledge you do not possess, disqualifies yourself. It is senseless to have any exchange with you at all so from here on out I will refrain.

Originally posted by Dasa
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.

If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.

Why would I do this.???

Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)

Islam is not an authentic reli ...[text shortened]... lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.

The man who called for the forced extermination of all Muslim men is moaning that another religion is a 'political fascist ideology'. You couldn't make it up.

Again, does Prabhupada share your views on Islam?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you mean, 'non-dual' means atheist?

Nondualism can be nontheistic, it need not be. The same for personal/impersonal (though I might prefer "conscious/unconscious--whether the all-in-all Real could in some sense be said to be conscious or not): Sufism is more "personalistic", as are Kabbalah and Hasidism in Judaism (as was the Christian theologian Meister Eckhart); Zen is not. That is why I mentioned the pronoun "who", as well as "which", in my post.

__________________________________________

EDIT: By the way, sonhouse, I said earlier that I thought that Srila Prabhupada’s Vaishnava Vedanta was dualistic—but here is a quote by him that implies otherwise (my bold italics):

That is in Islam. That means God is not material. That is the idea. Because here the idea is when I make something, an image or picture, that is material. So there is a prohibition of accepting God as material. But if you go to a higher stage, then you'll understand that if God is everything, then nothing is material. That is Vaishnava philosophy. If God is everything, then where is matter? He is spiritual. Material means when you cannot understand God. That is material. Everything is sky. When it is covered by clouds, we call it cloudy. Similarly, clouds have no existence. They only come to cover for a while, but the sky is eternal. Similarly, God is eternal. When you are covered by some maya (illusion), you cannot see, you cannot understand God, that is material. So, any philosophy which does not help in the understanding of God is material. That is material. Otherwise, there is no material. Where is material if God is everything? Do you see?

— http://www.harekrsna.de/artikel/islam.htm

The above (as well as Srila Prabhupada’s discussion of form and formlessness earlier in the cited compendium) also sheds light on his particular understanding of “material”. He also uses the distinction between energy and matter.