Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Outside of Christianity


ambelamba

Recommended Posts

Exodus 2:22 Is where the title came from.

And she bore him a son, and he called his name Gershom [that is, A stranger there]; for he said, “I have been a stranger in a strange land.”

Good job! One other question, for now--are there archaeological evidences of Druidic practices, or only oral history/contemporary texts already mentioned? If Druidism is viable with the 21st century, who brought it into modern (20-21st centuries) consciousness? Only oral tradition?

Again, with all respect; some Christians (my northern European brethren) treat the mistletoe at Christmastide as a harbinger of blessings in the future. Do Druids of your connection see it similarly? If so (I know the evergreen is already one for us) there are more, rather than fewer, pagan-Christian confluences between us.

Would you agree? If so/not, please fill me in. Thanks

Exodus 2:22 Is where the title came from.

And she bore him a son, and he called his name Gershom [that is, A stranger there]; for he said, “I have been a stranger in a strange land.”

Thanks for the corrective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God demands us to abandon our common sense, that God doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

I seem to recall a Psalm to the tune of "as gold and silver are to you, questions are to the Lord", which suggests that God's got no problems with people using their brains.

It's the religious demagogues that want sheeple.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job! One other question, for now--are there archaeological evidences of Druidic practices, or only oral history/contemporary texts already mentioned? If Druidism is viable with the 21st century, who brought it into modern (20-21st centuries) consciousness? Only oral tradition?

Again, with all respect; some Christians (my northern European brethren) treat the mistletoe at Christmastide as a harbinger of blessings in the future. Do Druids of your connection see it similarly? If so (I know the evergreen is already one for us) there are more, rather than fewer, pagan-Christian confluences between us.

Would you agree? If so/not, please fill me in. Thanks

Thanks for the corrective!

There are many different kind of Druidry. The ancient Celtic Druids didn't write anything down and modern Druidry in Britain started in the 1700's in the romantic revival. I am not going to do all this typing. http://www.nachtanz....od_druids1.html

Druidry in the States started in 1963 but people who wanted to get out of are religious requirement imposed by their school. They are right up front about it. They where Hippies so they started an Earth base path which is really more of philosophy than religion. Hippies never went away, they just never left school. I don't think they were expecting it to take off like it did. All religions have a starting place, this is new, is it viable, why wouldn't it be. In the year 500 was Christianity viable? Here is something I posted earlier about Modern Druidry.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=249795

All Earth base Pagan religions are new, I don't care that the Wiccans say, what they do started in the 50's .Read "Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton. He knows his stuff.

The best thing an Ancient Druids did for us is not write anything down. We get a do over. No non-sense of putting people in the Wickerman and burning them alive or out dated rules. Be happy about that one.

edit To add, when you look round at the planet and see the damage we are doing. Earth Base Paths honor the Earth which is our home. We need to start looking out for our home. I think the Neo Pagan movement is over do, somebody needs to look after our home.

Edited by Darkwind
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Your spiritual path is your own...no one else's. Buddhist beliefs are compatible with Christianity...read up on Buddhism, there are a lot if similarities, I let you find them for yourself. IMO, a lot of the world's religions have the same central points,..love, forgiveness and tolerance. All the rest is doctrine, dogma and theory. Do some research and some self-examination of your beliefs. Like libstaK, I was baptised Roman Catholic but lean toward the Gnostic teachings. I was a lot like you at one point, afraid to learn about different beliefs because of how I was raised but my knowing there was more out there and my curiosity were stronger than my fear. I read every book on different religions and beliefs I could get my hands on. Eventually, I came back to my roots, so to speak, but my faith is stronger, my beliefs are my own and I expanded my beliefs as well. There are many different paths to God. Find your own. :yes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was in a better life situation I would freely pursue whatever spirituality I want to study. :(

Sometimes, it is the very life situation you are in that can lead you to your path.

Not knowing the details of your life, let me say that once I started looking at things in a 'positive' light as opposed to a 'negative' one, things started to, and continue to, improve in my own life.

Nothing too outre, just a form of 'dwelling on the positive' and the law of attraction.

And if you need a friendly sympathetic ear, PM me. I may not be able to help, but at least I listen real good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My, but you are all over the place on this. You stated (post #18) "I (yourself) usually use the KJV." I didn't refer to it except in that context. It is the least reliable of available English translations, yet you use it. I read it when it was the standard version of my youth, and off and on since. How can your reference to the KJV be my problem? I never based any of my dates/my response on the KJV. What are you talking about?

If one REALLY wants to know what a passage said/meant, one has to look it up in several different translations. That gives you a general idea of what was meant. One version is not necessarily better than another for that purpose. As I said in post 18, I prefer KJV because of its elegant language, not because of its accuracy. If you're looking for accuracy, the "Journal of Higher Criticism" will get you farther, but you might have to read thirty years of back issues to find what you're looking for.

Theology is an academic discipline rooted in history, archaeology, hard scientific data (carbon-14 dating of bones,teeth and other material; biological analysis of seeds, grain remains, middens, graves, tombs and much more), tradition and literature, not "fables and urban legends" as you dismissively assert. Why read about it if you've decreed it all mumbo-jumbo?

I dismiss theology because it is not supported by physical observations (If you know of exceptions to that, please cite some references.). The Young Earth idea, the idea that Noah's Flood covered the entire earth, etc. You still see people posting these ideas right here on UM as if they believed them. Do you?

The term "god is dead" theology simply refers to the antiquated nature of your assertions. What you have written in this thread was all old hat by the 1970's.

YOU brought up the "god is dead" idea. I see it as irrelevant. Doesn't matter if god is dead (or ever existed). As there is no objective evidence of god, there is no choice but to dismiss it.

Your materialist views are clear; your scholarship is not, nor is it fresh or insightful. It's obsolete. Open-minded research is apparently not your strong suit; pre-conceptions, assumptions and driving an agenda appear to be your domain.

I try my best to be open-minded. I am immediately willing to drop any ideas that turn out to be wrong. And there have been several since I came to UM. For example, I no longer believe that Justin the Martyr was quoting from our modern gospels; I now believe that Ignatius of Antioch died in the arena at Antioch on December 17, 117 AD and never got to Rome to be torn apart by wild beasts and I now believe that Papias was way too young to have actually met John the Apostle and was writing based on hearsay evidence. Papias was not a witness to John and Polycarp, himself, never claimed to be - that claim was made for him by Irenaeus.

Proponents of enlightened biblical research since the 1800's don't claim findings verifiable according to your constricted version of pseudo-scientism.

Then there is no objective evidence to support the historicity of Jesus - you just said so, thereby admitting that Jesus is a myth. I am a little more optimistic. I think there might be something so I am going to look for it.

To repeat: The same criteria that your methodology would apply to Jesus' existence apply equally to Homer, Plato and many other accepted historical personages.

I don't know about Homer; I've never studied him. But somebody wrote down the stories. If it wasn't somebody named "Homer" then it was somebody who assumed that function. As I understand it, "Homer's" stories actually had several different authors. Plato was written about by his own students - eyewitnesses. There are no eye-witnesses to Jesus.

To repeat another point: You tend to refute things I've never written. That's not dialogue. It might be a monologue, but I'm not impressed by self-sustaining diatribes.

And you tend to argue against things I never said, either. Let's get specific. Choose a specific issue and we'll deal with it. You are assuming I am rejecting Jesus when what I am rejecting is nothing more than bad evidence.

We all have a right to our opinions; when one writes or speaks definitively, especially "scientifically," one is obligated to be responsible--not misleading.

I have actually published ten articles in scientific publications, mostly in conference proceedings. PM me and I'll send you a list of citations. Admittedly, all my scientific articles are about physical things, like trees and ice storms. I will be glad to email you pre-publication copies of three that are currently pending (still under peer review). I am doing nothing more than applying scientific standards to the evidence presented in support of a "historical Jesus." Where that will lead me, I don't know, but if I knew, there would be no point in doing it.

So how many research articles have you published?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug---regarding post #18--you did a fine job of refuting points I didn't make (example: Your contention that "Baal" is used more often than "Jehovah" in the OT;

Wrong! I referred only to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. You didn't bother to read the post.

your attempted refutation that Jesus is as historically attested as Aristotle, Plato and others,

Aristotle was one of Plato's students. It is Aristotle from whom we derive eye-witness acounts of Plato. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Eurymedon the hierophant was an eye-witness to Aristotle. How many books did Jesus write? How many real people (historically verifiable) saw him and wrote about the experience?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I admit that I am the cause of my own misery. In my life, karma never gave me a break.

At this point, I am beginning to feel skeptical to the spiritual growth itself. I know that I have an innate tendency to lean forward spirituality, but it doesn't help improve my life situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong! I referred only to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. You didn't bother to read the post.

Aristotle was one of Plato's students. It is Aristotle from whom we derive eye-witness acounts of Plato. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Eurymedon the hierophant was an eye-witness to Aristotle. How many books did Jesus write? How many real people (historically verifiable) saw him and wrote about the experience?

Doug

I read as well--or as poorly--as you do, Doug. You reply to my replies as if you are replying to your own echoes. The very way in which you reply, parsing and editorializing piecemeal (you do it not only to me, as I have read) indicates you are a linear thinker and don't connect dots in conversation or correspondence. You may imagine yourself as having an open mind, but you have precluded learning anything from me (and possibly others) because your mind is made up before you even attempt to engage in dialog.

You don't discuss; you refute. You don't exchange ideas; you presume many others' ideas D.O.A., presumptuously. You are a "knowtitall," who doesn't (at least one thing you don't know--that you're a know-it-all). If I said, "I have an open mind, but I don't accept material reality as ultimately real" (not my position), would you say I have an "open" mind?

Lots of stuff in human experience is inaccessible to physical observation/experimental repitition: Memory; poetry; feelings; thoughts; mysticism; visions internal and external; imagination (the sound of one hand clapping), etc. Science does not, or thus far has not, answered many of its own questions about physical reality (how do migratory birds navigate? why did Hitler not advance his tanks upon the beach at Dunkirk in 1940?).

I've only published two articles, although I do not measure my intellect or value as a human by that meager standard. My only claim to fame came in 1981 when I defeated (by student and faculty acclamation) my graduate school ethics professor in a debate about the relative validity of marxist analysis of revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the US government's response thereto. One of my skills is identifying internal inconsistencies in others' thinking. The professor had an open mind, and conceded his weakness on the marxist angle, thus giving me the edge. Other people can't admit such, and simply go on a long excursus ultimately validating only themselves, resistant to any nuance, rejecting or misinterpreting others' positions, swallowing their own tail (tale?) like the mythical dragon.

I wish you success in whatever you do. Publish often, and well.

Thus proceed both the religious fundamentalist and the scientific

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I admit that I am the cause of my own misery. In my life, karma never gave me a break.

At this point, I am beginning to feel skeptical to the spiritual growth itself. I know that I have an innate tendency to lean forward spirituality, but it doesn't help improve my life situations.

If Karma is all about punishment for what you have done in this and or past life then I must have been a serial killer at some time. I never really bought into whole "it's karma." I have seen to many people in really horrible situations who did nothing I could see to deserve their fate. Things that make you think, my life isn't as bad as I think. You have a major talent in your art. Do what I do I make art to please myself. I am not going to make any money off it, but it is really good for my mental health and who knows maybe somebody will like too. Sometimes you do things and think you have failed, but sometimes failure is really just moment to think and restart in a different direction. Hang in there guy I am pulling for you.

In its most basic sense, the Law of Karma in the moral sphere teaches that similar actions will lead to similar results. Let us take an example. If we plant a mango seed, the plant that springs up will be a mango tree, and eventually it will bear a mango fruit. Alternatively, if we plant a Pong Pong seed, the tree that will spring up will be a Pong Pong tree and the fruit a Pong Pong. As one sows, so shall one reap. According to one’s action, so shall be the fruit. Similarly, in the Law of Karma, if we do a wholesome action, eventually we will get a wholesome fruit, and if we do an unwholesome action eventually we will get an unwholesome, painful result. This is what we mean when we say that causes bring about effects that are similar to the causes. This we will see very clearly when we come to specific examples of wholesome and unwholesome actions.

We can understand by means of this general introduction that karma can be of two varieties - wholesome karma or good karma and unwholesome karma or bad karma. In order that we should not misunderstand this description of karma, it is useful for us to look at the original term. In this case, it is kushala or akushala karma, karma that is wholesome or unwholesome. In order that we understand how these terms are being used, it is important that we know the real meaning of kushala and akushala. Kushala means intelligent or skilful, whereas akushala means not intelligent, not skilful. This helps us to understand how these terms are being used, not in terms of good and evil but in terms of skilful and unskilful, in terms of intelligent and unintelligent, in terms of wholesome and unwholesome. Now how wholesome and how unwholesome? Wholesome in the sense that those actions which are beneficial to oneself and others, those actions that spring not out of desire, ill-will and ignorance, but out of renunciation, loving-kindness and compassion, and wisdom.

One may ask how does one know whether an action that is wholesome or unwholesome will produce happiness or unhappiness. The answer is time will tell. The Buddha Himself answered the question. He has explained that so long as an unwholesome action does not bear its fruit of suffering, for so long a foolish person will consider that action good. But when that unwholesome action bears its fruit of suffering then he will realize that the action is unwholesome. Similarly, so long as a wholesome action does not bear its fruit of happiness, a good person may consider that action unwholesome. When it bears its fruit of happiness, then he will realize that the action is good. So one needs to judge wholesome and unwholesome action from the point of view of long-term effect. Very simply, wholesome actions result in eventual happiness for oneself and others, while unwholesome actions have the opposite result, they result in suffering for oneself and others. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may imagine yourself as having an open mind, but you have precluded learning anything from me (and possibly others) because your mind is made up before you even attempt to engage in dialog.

So what dialogue would you like to engage in? If you're talking about theological ideas, I'm a poor choice. Theology is a subject I avoid because of its ephemeral nature. But if you want to talk about the dates the gospels were written, or about the Red Sea Crossing, or something more concrete, then have at it.

Parsing things - that's how we do science - break it down into its constituents and look at each one individually. Then reassemble the idea. It may be linear thinking, but it's n-dimensional linearity.

You don't discuss; you refute.

You haven't presented anything to discuss, let alone refute. Why not actually present something? Like: did Moses have a military background? Or: which mountain was Mt. Sinai? Or: was Seneca the original author of the gospels? If I say something you don't like, counter it with your own evidence and thinking. I, in turn, will counter your idea. That's a discussion I would like to have, but to have it, both sides must have a body of knowledge to draw on. If you don't know that Aristotle was Plato's student and wrote about him, then you will say dumb things, like there not being eye-witness accounts of Plato. That's not the kind of discussion I want - I prefer one based in fact.

I have several times posted things which are a little shaky just to see if anybody would catch them. But none of our "Bible students" with all their many years of Bible reading, caught them. I have said that Luke/Acts was written in about 159 AD. There is a counter to that argument. What is it? Come on you Bible experts; let's hear why 159 AD has to be wrong.

If I said, "I have an open mind, but I don't accept material reality as ultimately real" (not my position), would you say I have an "open" mind?

I do not understand the point of this question. If you choose to reject material reality (or not), that is your affair and has no bearing on whether you have an open mind.

Lots of stuff in human experience is inaccessible to physical observation/experimental repitition: Memory; poetry; feelings; thoughts; mysticism; visions internal and external; imagination (the sound of one hand clapping), etc.

There are a lot of things that science should stay out of. Poetry and mysticism are probably two of them. But inroads are being made into memory and how it works and how imagination alters memory. And who knows? Maybe the others in your list will be next. Because nobody has been able to observe something in the past does not mean that it will always remain so.

Science does not, or thus far has not, answered many of its own questions

Part of the scientist's job is to raise questions.

about physical reality (how do migratory birds navigate? why did Hitler not advance his tanks upon the beach at Dunkirk in 1940?).

I suggest you do some reading on both these topics as there are peer reviewed articles available on both.

I've only published two articles, although I do not measure my intellect or value as a human by that meager standard. My only claim to fame came in 1981 when I defeated (by student and faculty acclamation) my graduate school ethics professor in a debate about the relative validity of marxist analysis of revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the US government's response thereto. One of my skills is identifying internal inconsistencies in others' thinking. The professor had an open mind, and conceded his weakness on the marxist angle, thus giving me the edge. Other people can't admit such, and simply go on a long excursus ultimately validating only themselves, resistant to any nuance, rejecting or misinterpreting others' positions, swallowing their own tail (tale?) like the mythical dragon.

I wish you success in whatever you do. Publish often, and well.

Thus proceed both the religious fundamentalist and the scientific

Congratulations on your accomplishments.

Please don't mistake my investigation of the evidence pertaining to the gospels and Jesus as an attack on religion or, specifically, fundamentalism. All I could discover is that there is no evidence to support the existence of Jesus. But that would also mean there is no evidence to refute it, either. The argument about whether Jesus had a physical existence has been going on since the second century, at least, and is still being debated. If I found he didn't have a physical existence, then that still leaves a spiritual existence, a subject that is beyond my reach.

We get the best religion when religionists stay out of science and we get the best science when scientists stay out of religion. The problem for most people is that they can't seem to draw the line between the physical and the spiritual.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug, you continue to repeat the same unilateral, monological "discussion." An example: You have stated that there is no evidence Jesus existed (no eyewitnesses); I responded that there is about as much evidence for Jesus being an historical personage as there is for Plato (no eyewitnesses except people who spoke to and wrote about him) and other historical personages. You misinterpreted and misquoted what I said, paraphrasing it as "there were no eyewitnesses to Plato." I did not say that. I said ". . . as much evidence for Jesus as Plato." Going back to one of my earlier posts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus, and 3 (perhaps 4) were eyewitnesses, who passed that witness on to generations and centuries of others who never saw Jesus, but accepted the deposit of previous witnesses. Your reply is, "Let's talk about Seneca writing the gospels," and then use one-sided scholarship to date the gospels. That's why I perceive you as attempting to argue with things I never said.

And you do it again, and again and again. . . A second example: "There are peer reviewed articles on both" migratory avian navigation and Hitler's use of armor at Dunkirk--but there are no definitive answers. That has been my point--no definitive answers--precisely because no one can enter Hitler's mind and know why he decided what he did, and there are only theories unproven about certain bird behaviors. "Science does not have definitive answers to everything" was my point. Your response: "Peer reviewed articles on those subjects exist." Those are two different things. Do you understand why my statement was not refuted by your statement, and yours only changed the vector of the discussion?

I can cite hundreds of peer reviewed theological articles I have read, and hundreds more that I have skimmed, but I would never state that they "proved" anything.

If religion is of such little consequence to you, why do you comment on it so "authoritatively" in these threads?

Putting it another way, I'm a practical adept regarding ice storms because of the localities and climates in which I have lived. I have lived, for years, what you write about. Fine. Maybe you have more than paper experience of ice storms, too. Good. Would I attempt to refute your peer reviewed article(s) on ice storms? Of course not. I've just chipped a lot of ice and rescued a few errant vehicles. Yet some scientifically-oriented persons deem it laudable to make judgments about religion and theology; in your case cherry-picking the information to suit your materialism.

We get the best out of science and religion when each respects the other and keeps an open mind to differance (Jacques Derrida). Some people can do that. Some cannot.

Trusting that you will prosper in your chosen endeavors, I wish you well.

Edited by szentgyorgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to one of my earlier posts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus, and 3 (perhaps 4) were eyewitnesses, who passed that witness on to generations and centuries of others who never saw Jesus, but accepted the deposit of previous witnesses.

So you're one of those people who actually believe that the gospels are eye-witness accounts by people who really lived!

Well, I did say that you should bring up a subject for discussion, and you did: who wrote the gospels and when.

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who was martyred by beheading in 165 AD: Mark never talked to any of the Apostles, let alone, Jesus. He obtained all his information third hand from "presbyters (people who had talked to an Apostle who had talked to Jesus)." According to Papias, what Mark wrote was a collection of sayings, not a biography. But what we call the Book of Mark is a biography. So who actually wrote the Book of Mark? And when?

OK. Your turn. Who wrote the Book of Mark and when did he do it?

BTW: All these ancient texts are available on line. Check out www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html.

And you do it again, and again and again. . . A second example: "There are peer reviewed articles on both" migratory avian navigation and Hitler's use of armor at Dunkirk--but there are no definitive answers. That has been my point--no definitive answers--precisely because no one can enter Hitler's mind and know why he decided what he did, and there are only theories unproven about certain bird behaviors. "Science does not have definitive answers to everything" was my point. Your response: "Peer reviewed articles on those subjects exist." Those are two different things. Do you understand why my statement was not refuted by your statement, and yours only changed the vector of the discussion?

Sorry. I was hoping you would read up on those subjects and learn something about science and history. Peer-reviewed articles each tell what was done, why, what was found and what it might mean.

I can cite hundreds of peer reviewed theological articles I have read, and hundreds more that I have skimmed, but I would never state that they "proved" anything.

Theological articles! Peer reviewed! I have seen a few of these, myself, and while that is probably a lot fewer than you, the ones I have seen do nothing but stack speculation on top of speculation. They don't back up their claims! Their idea of "evidence" is to cite somebody else's speculation!

If religion is of such little consequence to you, why do you comment on it so "authoritatively" in these threads?

I seek the truth behind the myths. I believe that there is a kernel of truth that started each of these legends. I am curious about whether Jesus actually lived and if so, how much is actually known about him. I have heard all sorts of wild claims from all sides of the issue. I do not feel that I can take anybody's word on anything when it comes to Jesus, god, etc. There is so much B--- S--- surrounding this subject that the easiest way to accomplish my goal seems to throw it all out and start over. Start with the best evidence possible and follow it wherever it leads.

Putting it another way, I'm a practical adept regarding ice storms because of the localities and climates in which I have lived. I have lived, for years, what you write about. Fine. Maybe you have more than paper experience of ice storms, too. Good. Would I attempt to refute your peer reviewed article(s) on ice storms? Of course not. I've just chipped a lot of ice and rescued a few errant vehicles. Yet some scientifically-oriented persons deem it laudable to make judgments about religion and theology; in your case cherry-picking the information to suit your materialism.

What my ice storm papers are about is 1. a shortleaf pine regional chronology for the Ouachita National Forest, 2. the identification of an ice-storm signal in tree ring series that can be used to identify the years in which major winter storms occurred (going back to 1745) and, 3. an analysis of how tree breakage relates to merchantability, diameter and height.

You misunderstand me. I am not making judgements about religion. I don't care whether my findings support this or that religion. There are so many opinions out there that no matter what I discover, I will offend some and vindicate others. All I'm doing is seeking truth and I still have a long way to go. Just why is it that you think you'll be on the losing side?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug, you write so many non-starters and personal jargon; you like being opaque. I challenged you on not replying to things I said, and replying to things I did not say. You kept it up. You failed the challenge.

The most recent example: I'm getting the impression you have not lived through as many ice storms as I have. Your papers will not help me in my next one.

Publish well. Take care. "Losing side?" I've already won.

Edited by szentgyorgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?

This stuff happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hustle up a posse ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, it looks like your topic was hijacked. Were any of the responses helpful?

Not quite. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stuff happens.

It does. Mostly I just ignore it, though I admire the passion. Just wondered how Ron was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. :no:

Oh, sad little unhappy face! There's no perfect solution to anything. What worked for me when I was going through a hard time was making small steps, because honestly, that's all I could manage. When I felt good about something, it encouraged me to take another small step. Then that felt good, etc. I think I regained confidence in myself through that process. But there sure wasn't one big solution, and if there was, I wouldn't have been up to it, anyway. I worked a lot on accepting myself for who I was in the moment. My mantra was: however I am right now, however I am feeling in this moment, is perfect for me. I got this from a Science of the Mind magazine article I had read, decided to try it, and it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does. Mostly I just ignore it, though I admire the passion. Just wondered how Ron was doing.

Sorry, I was thinking out loud, and feeling guilty for "going on." Yours as a kind post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was thinking out loud, and feeling guilty for "going on." Yours as a kind post.

Me too. Sorry about that.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago I found exchristian.net.

I agree pretty much most of the articles posted up there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good you have found friends. :yes: I have a friend who goes to atheist/humanist meet ups. Takes the kids, has a good time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good you have found friends. :yes: I have a friend who goes to atheist/humanist meet ups. Takes the kids, has a good time.

I gotta be honest with you.

I am beginning to realize that I really don't belong here. There are too many people whom I can't agree with at best. There are quite a few who are totally out there( to put it nicely) and many of the people in here are completely stuck in mystical and supernatural perspective, which I can't stand.

There's a very personal and private reason why I became so hostile and hateful to mysticism and supernatural views. And I don't think I can really make others understand my situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.