george@sysvis (09/13/85)
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 ___. ]rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/17/85)
First, let me disclaim - I have never sent a nickel to Jerry Falwell
and I disagree with him on several topics. However, your linkage
of him to Jim Jones shows that you've managed to compress a wide
disparity in faith and actions into a narrow crack. You certainly
are wise in seeking to expand your base of knowledge.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}