NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

Hae ae ae ae...!!

Originally Posted by OCak
Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

Because I a)was never brought up in a religious household, and was even genuinely surprised that there are places that have more believers than non-believers, when I first found that out, and b) I believe that I am in control of my own life, with no external influences past or present, and c) I believe it to be illogical.

And yes, that question has been asked.



Originally Posted by OCak
Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

Because religion is the easy way out.

Shall I...!? :)

Waddaya think, gang..!?

Just say "GO!"

:)

When you find someone's behavior "bad", you judge them.
Yeah, I was actually going to amend it to account for that, but then lunch hour came. :)

Because religion is the easy way out.
Out of what?

Out of what?

Out of rational logic. A means to answer the unexplainable, that may have been acceptable about 4,000 years ago but now we have this thing called "science" that uses empirical data to explain things and not fairy tales.

Out of rational logic. A means to answer the unexplainable, that may have been acceptable about 4,000 years ago but now we have this thing called "science" that uses empirical data to explain things and not fairy tales.
But what if your religion isn't about answering things, explaining things, or fairy tales? Then what is it an "out" of?

For Sanx, whom I believe originally created this thread -
I suggest you read "The Case Against God" By George H. Smith - a 160 page word document, if you can find it, or paperback/hardcover in your local bookstore. Very engaging, dense, and logical book.

- Bill

But what if your religion isn't about answering things, explaining things, or fairy tales? Then what is it an "out" of?

It is about explaining things. How mankind came about, how the universe started, etc. However, if it wasn't used to explain things then I guess it would an escape of reality.

Reality is normally cold and harsh; people don't like to deal with that so when we're offered eternal paradise odds are we're going to go for it. However, we only believed in Santa for a short amount of time.

just play black and white 1. or 2 when it comes out. much more satisfying than going to church :)

From a total non-believer.

It is about explaining things. How mankind came about, how the universe started, etc. However, if it wasn't used to explain things then I guess it would an escape of reality.

Reality is normally cold and harsh; people don't like to deal with that so when we're offered eternal paradise odds are we're going to go for it. However, we only believed in Santa for a short amount of time.
Most religions are not about explaining things; that would be mistaking the myth for the religion.

Reality is actually pretty sunny today.

It is about explaining things. How mankind came about, how the universe started, etc. However, if it wasn't used to explain things then I guess it would an escape of reality.

Some religions are about explaining things, some religions are about helping you interact with the Divine,.

Reality is normally cold and harsh; people don't like to deal with that so when we're offered eternal paradise odds are we're going to go for it. However, we only believed in Santa for a short amount of time.

Again some religions are like this, other religions concentrate on making reality a little less cold and harsh, helping people who need it, liberating them from their own personal Hell's of loneliness, isolation, fear, depression, etc.

Most religions are not about explaining things; that would be mistaking the myth for the religion.

Reality is actually pretty sunny today.

Unfortunately people who follow religion are convinced that their holy book contains all the knowlege in the universe.

Nowadays it is but back around 1200ad it wasn't.

im not sceptical about spirituality of any kind, however organised religion is full of flaws, i hope you wont mind if i put on a thread that is designed to make one ponder their faith? its fair if you try and convert i can try and do the opposite?

im not sceptical about spirituality of any kind, however organised religion is full of flaws, i hope you wont mind if i put on a thread that is designed to make one ponder their faith? its fair if you try and convert i can try and do the opposite?

1) Of course organized religion is full of flaws, it's made up of flawed people :-)

2) I think the idea of a thread is great. You can call it, "We have questions for your answers."

Originally Posted by Luporum
Because religion is the easy way out.


Originally Posted by Willamena
Out of what?

Out of rational logic. A means to answer the unexplainable, that may have been acceptable about 4,000 years ago but now we have this thing called "science" that uses empirical data to explain things and not fairy tales.


You can't answer the unexplainable,.. that's why it's unexplainable.

BUT,.. there's only one thing that is unexplainable, and that is god.

If you can get closer to the truth about something through observation, then
it makes sense to do that, instead of resorting to "made up" reasons,.. unless
those "made up" reasons somehow make it easier to get back to observing
what you're trying to explain. (Is this not how science works?)

What things are you trying to explain? And what sorts of things do you think
religion tries to explain that it shouldn't?

Originally Posted by Willamena
But what if your religion isn't about answering things, explaining things, or fairy tales? Then what is it an "out" of?

It is about explaining things. How mankind came about, how the universe started, etc. However, if it wasn't used to explain things then I guess it would an escape of reality.

Your first statement is false. My religion is not about explaining things. It is about helping me deal with reality.


Reality is normally cold and harsh; people don't like to deal with that so when we're offered eternal paradise odds are we're going to go for it. However, we only believed in Santa for a short amount of time.

Reality, to me, is generous and wonderful.

I like to deal with it because it is wonderful to deal with, even in it's trials,
because the alternative is non-existence, which would not be wonderful, for
me.

My religion has no eternal paradise, as nothing but god is eternal. I suppose,
actually, that god himself (don't get stuck on the pronouns!!) is the "eternal
paradise". Thanks for helping me to see that.

Santa brings kids an image of the perfect "rewarder", as an excuse to be
good. Does that "story" (or more malevolently: LIE!) have a purpose? Yes.

Once a kid knows there are good reasons to be good, is there any purpose
for them to believe in Santa? No.

Why does Santa persist as a story character? Because it's useful in
promoting a good purpose.

Does that mean Santa doesn't exist? No. Santa exists as "Santa", the story
character.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Most religions are not about explaining things; that would be mistaking the myth for the religion.

Reality is actually pretty sunny today.

Unfortunately people who follow religion are convinced that their holy book contains all the knowlege in the universe.

Nowadays it is but back around 1200ad it wasn't.

Your brush is too large. My religion does not fit your definition. Am I correct,
or are you correct?

The same range of privation and general nastiness exists today as has always
existed. The world, for all our "progress", has not really changed very much.

As always, the question that we each must answer is how we react to our
reality. Religion, for me, is a powerful tool to aid me in dealing with my reality.

If you deal with your reality differently (which we ALL do differently!), and it
works powerfully for you, I applaud you for being an effective person..!!

More to you..!!! :D

1) Of course organized religion is full of flaws, it's made up of flawed people :-)

2) I think the idea of a thread is great. You can call it, "We have questions for your answers."


EXCELLENT..!!! :D

And you infer "agrumentativeness" where there is none.

I don't argue. As per: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argue

I state my understanding of what we are discussing. I have no interest in
persuading you (or anyone) in any way at all. I'm merely making my opinion
known to you on the subject at hand.

I'm not now being "argumentative". I'm attempting to get you to understand
my opinion as to, for example, why conversation and "reading" are not the
same in how I (at any rate) practice them.

Reading is NOT a conversation, and I do each differently.

If you do each of them the same way,.. I bid you much enjoyment in your
reading and conversation. Period. :D

But you use the same language in each. If understanding can be achieved in one-sided statement of beliefs, description of events, summary of an experiment, etc. without a discussion of terms, why shouldn't it be equally possible to achieve understanding in the same way using the same language without a long discussion of terms when engaging in a two-way intercourse? The answer is, it is equally possible and that's really the point.

Now when it's a discussion about a difference in ideas then it is valuable like the discussion you and Willamena are having about your idea of God, but if you discussion degrades into I call my version God and your version "Bellyacher 2000" then it's a pointless discussion. You described the same points I made while making them sound different by redefining already defined terms, thus sparking a disagreement that was not really a disagreement. To me, that is a waste of time and effort. Now if this is what you think is required to have a discussion, have fun, but I'm not interested.

I don't see any galactic space spook. Just god. :)

But,.. I did "experience" something that lead me to god..! And that something
was the realization that it was better to be able to act than to not act, and
that which makes it easier for me to act (the choose, to "cross") I call god.

Creatures (creations) are easily banished if they do not bite, and no god
bites.

I don't understand what you are saying... what was your 'experience'?

God is not a teacher. God's job is to be adored, and his creations learned
from. The "teachers" are his creations, not himself.

Not quite suer what you mean by that?

Care to explain further? :)

If God cannot communicate with his own creation, it is hardly a fault of the creations... more a fault in the Creation.

All children have a sense of wonder at the world.

That joy, and the fact that they don't run in panic at the natural world
naturally unless through learned experience, is god "taking care" of children.

That is the true god. We all have this inherent god from before birth until
death. That is the true god. And the world over, this god is worshipped
spontaneously and continually, until interfered with by society.

The metaphors that are imposed for various social reasons, and called god,
are not god, but an interpretation of god. They point to various aspects of
god-stuff, but the only actual pointer to god is the feeling of wonder and
confort at really be ing in the world, and knowing it as a child does.

This conception of god, of course, doesn't give us much to talk about if you
think god is some "big goofball in the sky who likes to punish and smite and
stuff".

This is all very nice, but it doesn't mean anything.

God is the sense of wonder of children? Then, god can just as easily be explained as 'monkey curiousity'.

Seriously - it's a nice idea... and one I HAVE seen before, the idea that god IS because 'it is'... but I don't see any reason to accept it anymore than I see reason to accept the idea that gremlins play in aircraft motors, or Moses could part the Red Sea.

..and this merely points out how a tool can be misused. Using the sharp knife
for murder does not invalidate the sharp knife as a good tool. It simply makes
it a good tool for a bad purpose.


On this, we agree. I have no issue with the 'tool', even though I don't see it. In the same way that I can construct a 'mental program' as a tool you can't see, so your 'god' is to me.

I have only EVER had a problem with the USES of the tool, not with any version of the tool itself.


Such a person (this christian of yours) should be severly queried about the
location of said "inferno", by what means you will be taken there, and what it
is that is going to actually "burn" in such a place..!

I'd really like to know where this place is? Most people just point "down",
but "down" just doesn't do it for me..!! :)

Hell is below, and Heaven is above. For some, that is enough... and it doesn't matter that above and below can both be explored to show no trace of the alleged destinations...

This is all very nice, but it doesn't mean anything.

God is the sense of wonder of children? Then, god can just as easily be explained as 'monkey curiousity'.

Seriously - it's a nice idea... and one I HAVE seen before, the idea that god IS because 'it is'... but I don't see any reason to accept it anymore than I see reason to accept the idea that gremlins play in aircraft motors, or Moses could part the Red Sea.

You have to look back further and what he is describing as God. It's kind of ever evolving so he can argue whatever point he's trying to make. I'd pick out the posts for you, but I have to go clean up. I got some 'God' on my chin.

There's only one god. That's rather a definitional requirement of monotheism,
and in my particular definition, of theism as well.

(( The reason is, for me, that there can only BE one god, just as there can
only be one "inside" of a thing. ))

Your HaSatan sounds like a marvelous story device..! What is the obverse
equivalent? Is there an anti-HaSatan, who acts as "defense counsel"..?

As far as I am able to determine, 'god' himself is the nearest humans get to a 'defense'. He presumes them good, until proved otherwise (according to the Job version)... in fact, he seems to consider them flawless - and this is where HaSatan is important, because he is the hot needle of inquiry... the 'testing the creation'. HaSatan is a tool of trial in the hands of 'god'.

I'm not one of them. :) Hae ae ae ae....

Aha. It all becomes clear.

I had my suspicions. :)

Religion is a sham, news at 11.

You heard it here first folks.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.

Brilliant, and quite true, even though that isn't the full story of why so many are disenchanted with our most popular religions.

If you look deeper into almost any religion, you will find that the mysticism thereof almost always reflects a monotheistic aspect, even though without a masculine connotation.

The Greek Mysteries, Qabbalism, and even Meister Eickhart (of Christinaity) emphasized the presence of a divine energy or force responsible for the universe or just our world alone. Creative energy- the stuff hippies all ramble about, telluric currents, buterfly effect, all point to the same thing. The world's greatest philosopher's such as Plato also beleived the same thing.

When it comes down to it, religion as most of us know it are for the masses, because the truth, as cliche as it sounds, cannot be handled by everyone, or even accepted.

yet what does it say about a religion when its most elite believe something that contradicts the religion as practiced by everyone else?

Hell is below, and Heaven is above. For some, that is enough... and it doesn't matter that above and below can both be explored to show no trace of the alleged destinations...
Above and below ... symbolically the mind and the genitals, spirit and flesh, the idealogical and the material.


(I don't have a point, just throwing that symbolism out there.) ;)

Above and below ... symbolically the mind and the genitals, spirit and flesh, the idealogical and the material.


(I don't have a point, just throwing that symbolism out there.) ;)

Man and Woman, /\ and \/, Excalibur and the Grail, the sword and the cup, the breath and the blood, fire and water...

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
I don't see any galactic space spook. Just god.

But,.. I did "experience" something that lead me to god..! And that something
was the realization that it was better to be able to act than to not act, and
that which makes it easier for me to act (the choose, to "cross") I call god.

Creatures (creations) are easily banished if they do not bite, and no god
bites.

I don't understand what you are saying... what was your 'experience'?

What I exerienced was a recognition,.. an insight,.. a realization,..
a "revelation".

It was the realization that it was better to be able to act than not to act,
and that which makes it easier for me to act, the comfort to accept reality
as it is, is for me my experience of god.

By comfort I mean not "freaking out", to put WAY too modern a term to it, or
not panicking. There must be a certain level of "comfort" (non-overwhelm) to
be able to act effectively in any given circumstance.

If you are too busy denying reality ("This CAN'T be happening to ME!!!"), or
overwhelmed with the possible courses to take ("What the F**K do I do
NOW!!?") you can't allow what you already know you need to do (in that
martial arts ZEN kinda way) to happen.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
God is not a teacher. God's job is to be adored, and his creations learned
from. The "teachers" are his creations, not himself.

Not quite suer what you mean by that?

Care to explain further?

If God cannot communicate with his own creation, it is hardly a fault of the creations... more a fault in the Creation.

God has no need of communicating anything that isn't already communicated.

It is not god's job to "communicate". It is god's job to be adored.

(( This of course begs the definition of "adored". If you want to know what I
mean, you'll have to ask. ))

It is god's creations that "do the talking". We learn from phenomena. From
god's creations. They are our teachers.

God has nothing to say to us. God is not a "creature", not a "creation",.. and
has nothing to say that we don't already know, or can't learn from his
creations.

God's creations ARE his "communication" to us. But god never speaks as god.
If he did, he would not be god, but one of god's creations masquerading as
god. Does such a thing exist?

Now THERE'S a question..!! :)

My athiesim was based on a severe hatred of organized religion (CHRISTIANITY:sniper: ). Now that I've learned more about spirituality separate from religion, I'm more of an agnostic.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
All children have a sense of wonder at the world.

That joy, and the fact that they don't run in panic at the natural world
naturally unless through learned experience, is god "taking care" of children.

That is the true god. We all have this inherent god from before birth until
death. That is the true god. And the world over, this god is worshipped
spontaneously and continually, until interfered with by society.

The metaphors that are imposed for various social reasons, and called god,
are not god, but an interpretation of god. They point to various aspects of
god-stuff, but the only actual pointer to god is the feeling of wonder and
confort at really be ing in the world, and knowing it as a child does.

This conception of god, of course, doesn't give us much to talk about if you
think god is some "big goofball in the sky who likes to punish and smite and
stuff".

This is all very nice, but it doesn't mean anything.

But it DOES mean something if you assign it meaning.


God is the sense of wonder of children? Then, god can just as easily be explained as 'monkey curiousity'.

Yeah,.. I guess it could,.. although you'd have to explain what "monkey curiosity" means to you before I could REALLY agree with you.


Seriously - it's a nice idea... and one I HAVE seen before, the idea that god IS because 'it is'... but I don't see any reason to accept it anymore than I see reason to accept the idea that gremlins play in aircraft motors, or Moses could part the Red Sea.

Yeah,.. "It is",.. where've we seen THAT before..!! :)

I can only give my reasons for accepting such a thing.

It works for me. I like the metaphor(s), and find them effective in doing what
I want them to do for me. They are a useful tool,.. to me.

To others it may be pure nonsense. That's fine. :) It's not my job to judge
the gods of others, and not their job to judge mine.

If gremlins in motors and Moses-like guys doing storybook things aren't useful
to you, as they AREN'T to me (at the moment anyway), then they get
relegated to the "un-useful tools for the moment" pile in the spare bedroom.

Whatever tools you use to not seize-up when faced with the "overwhelm" of
the world are your versions of my tools for the same purpose.

Man does tools. That what we're built for. And we can choose those
that "work for us" individually.

May we all be as happy as I am with my tools..! :)

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
..and this merely points out how a tool can be misused. Using the sharp knife
for murder does not invalidate the sharp knife as a good tool. It simply makes
it a good tool for a bad purpose.

On this, we agree. I have no issue with the 'tool', even though I don't see it. In the same way that I can construct a 'mental program' as a tool you can't see, so your 'god' is to me.

I have only EVER had a problem with the USES of the tool, not with any
version of the tool itself.

That is why man's duty is to judge other's behavior, but not their "souls".

Evil acts need to be quashed by free men. Evil "souls" consume themselves in
their own internal friction powered by their own version (tool) of what I call
god.

Perhaps that is the place and the fire of Hell?

Hmmm,... <suddenly feels unduly profound>

Nyahh.. can't be that simple! Can it..?

You have to look back further and what he is describing as God. It's kind of ever evolving so he can argue whatever point he's trying to make. I'd pick out the posts for you, but I have to go clean up. I got some 'God' on my chin.

Hae ae ae ae... Don't leave god on your chin. It tends to be rather acidic.

Unless your LOOKING to have some derma-peeling done..! :)

(( Grave and I go WAY back,.. so he knows my "weirdness" even better than
you do. Thanks for warning him of me though,.. in the abstract. ))

Originally Posted by Willamena
Above and below ... symbolically the mind and the genitals, spirit and flesh, the idealogical and the material.


(I don't have a point, just throwing that symbolism out there.)

Man and Woman, /\ and \/, Excalibur and the Grail, the sword and the cup, the breath and the blood, fire and water...

The crop and the furrow, Beenie and Cecil, the wink and the nod, and my
personal favorite,.. Madonna and Madonna.

It is about explaining things. How mankind came about, how the universe started, etc. However, if it wasn't used to explain things then I guess it would an escape of reality.

Reality is normally cold and harsh; people don't like to deal with that so when we're offered eternal paradise odds are we're going to go for it. However, we only believed in Santa for a short amount of time.

I would say a more sensible way of looking at religion is not as being a way to explain things as much as it is to perceive things. Rather than say the glass is half empty or half full, I would rather say that the glass has room for more water.

Religion is not about avoiding reality either. One teaching that I have become fond of is the metaphor of the lotus flower. Lotus flowers grow in fetid, dank, murky swamps, but the flowers themselves bloom into beautiful white blossoms. A lotus doesn't become a beautiful flower despite being in a stinking bog, it becomes a beautiful flower because of being in a stinking bog. If one were to take a lotus flower and put it in pure white sand, it would wither and die.

What better way to go through life than to take all the bullshit surrounding you and use it as a means of becoming something wonderful? :D

You have to look back further and what he is describing as God. It's kind of ever evolving so he can argue whatever point he's trying to make. I'd pick out the posts for you, but I have to go clean up. I got some 'God' on my chin.
His view of god is rather consistent. What is mutable is his means of explaning, trying to find some common ground, some way of being understood (i.e. the metaphors).

I would say a more sensible way of looking at religion is not as being a way to explain things as much as it is to perceive things. Rather than say the glass is half empty or half full, I would rather say that the glass has room for more water.
I agree; religion is, in large part, philosophy. Rather than say the glass is half empty or half full, I would say the individual sees what they need to see just then.

If God cannot communicate with his own creation, it is hardly a fault of the creations... more a fault in the Creation.
This is my take on it: god does not communicate. What happens in communication is a message is sent, in either verbal or written symbols, and a message "received," and of course what is received is filtered through a second mind, so will not be exactly what was sent. What you have in communication is two processes, one done by each person: sending and receiving; talking and listening; creating and re-creating. (The message is, in effect, re-created by the new mind the moment it appears in the new mind, the moment he "gets it").

God is not a communicator or a teacher, not a deliberate one. What we learn from him is done on our side of the relationship, alone.

In divination, messages are perceived in natural phenomenon. The randomization of the pattern is an essential ingredient; it ensures that the message "that is there" is not one placed there of intent (is natural). The only intelligence involved in reading the message is that of the individual (the receiver). This has become distorted over time into the idea that God or Fate does put the messages there to be read (God/Fate works with intent) by manipulating circumstances. In other words, it takes the emphasis of importance away from the individual "reading" the message and puts it on a supernatural force "writing" the message. (In this way, the methodology of divination has been replaced with the idea that it's magic.)

The symbols of communication and divination occur outside of us. The messages (the part of the symbols that are understood) in either communication or divination do not occur outside of us, they are "re-creations" within; they are created inside when we "get it". They do not come from the thing being read, they come from the mind (or things subconscious in the mind). It's not so much different, talking with god, as talking with other people, when we suspend disbelief. We create the image of god, assign it comforting and comprehensible aspects, and learn from it. How then can we blame god for not giving us a readable message, when there is only one person involved in that sort of "communication"? (I know; Christianity has that other version).

Originally Posted by Jocabia
You have to look back further and what he is describing as God. It's kind of ever evolving so he can argue whatever point he's trying to make. I'd pick out the posts for you, but I have to go clean up. I got some 'God' on my chin.

His view of god is rather consistent. What is mutable is his means of explaning, trying to find some common ground, some way of being understood (i.e. the metaphors).

Joc, unlike anyone I know (well,.. that MAY be an overstatement!), considers
words to be explicit in themselves in meaning, thus not requiring further
exploration as to what they mean to the individuals speaking them or hearing
them.

I can ALWAYS find more ways of saying the same thing,.. from a slightly (or
majorly) different angle.

Joc thinks I'm being argumentative when I do that. How many times must I
explain that I don't argue. To argue is to try to convince. I don't try to
convince, to change anyone's mind, about anything. I simply (though often
not SIMPLY) try to communicate what I mean by what I say.

I do love dogmatic dictionary addicts though. I tend to be one, as regards
the INITIAL meaning of words, often consulting the Dictionary of Indo-
European Roots for "base" meanings of words.

But,.. once a mind tries to explain what it "sees" to another mind, shades of
meaning need to be expressed for which the only near-adequate expression is
a metaphorical/impressionistic set of words. At that point the dictionary
meanings behind the words/terms used become very fluid, as they are shaded
by the other words used in context.

In other words, a mind can only express it's more "esoteric" structures
poetically.

We need to be poets to comprehend such things as god-stuff, and subtle
comedy,.. and The Daily Show.

I do love dogmatic dictionary addicts though. I tend to be one, as regards
the INITIAL meaning of words, often consulting the Dictionary of Indo-
European Roots for "base" meanings of words. *snip*
Ooh! Where can I get one of those? Is it something like this (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226079376/qid=1127229922/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/701-9236581-2386711) (if so, I could order it today).

Religion is the root to all evil.

Along with oil, that is.

I would say a more sensible way of looking at religion is not as being a way to explain things as much as it is to perceive things. Rather than say the glass is half empty or half full, I would rather say that the glass has room for more water.

Religion is not about avoiding reality either. One teaching that I have become fond of is the metaphor of the lotus flower. Lotus flowers grow in fetid, dank, murky swamps, but the flowers themselves bloom into beautiful white blossoms. A lotus doesn't become a beautiful flower despite being in a stinking bog, it becomes a beautiful flower because of being in a stinking bog. If one were to take a lotus flower and put it in pure white sand, it would wither and die.

What better way to go through life than to take all the bullshit surrounding you and use it as a means of becoming something wonderful? :D

Cowchip, I feel the warm goofy glow of a kindred spirit in you..!!

I hope you don't mind me calling you by the nickname "Cowchip"..?

When I read your name, the image that came to mind was, well,.. a big
cinnamon bun shaped, frosting covered, warm steaming pile of bovo-dump
out in the paddock. :)

..a scene from my childhood,.. sort of.

Ooh! Where can I get one of those? Is it something like this (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226079376/qid=1127229922/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/701-9236581-2386711) (if so, I could order it today).


Uh,.. I have an old version of the American Heritage version (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618082506/qid=1127230530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/702-3074483-4172061).

Having several "competing" versions of what the "contrived" indoeuropeans
meant when THEY talked sounds like a good thing, so get as much as you
can or want to, such as that other book..! :)

I find that dictionary quite useful for getting to "base" meanings/implications
of indoeuropean based words. It sort of points at the "smell" of what our
words (english in my case) are "supposed to have" meant.

:)

Religion is the root to all evil.

Along with oil, that is.

The ROOT of all evil (religion)..?

And why is oil an evil, or a ROOT of evil..?

What about sharp pointy sticks and hot flamey things? Are they also ROOTS of evil?

And what about LOVE..!? Talk about a ROOT cause of evil doing..!!

What do you REALLY think? :)

Uh,.. I have an old version of the American Heritage version (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618082506/qid=1127230530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/702-3074483-4172061).

Having several "competing" versions of what the "contrived" indoeuropeans
meant when THEY talked sounds like a good thing, so get as much as you
can or want to, such as that other book..! :)

I find that dictionary quite useful for getting to "base" meanings/implications
or indoeuropean based words. It sort of points at the "smell" of what our
words (english in my case) are "supposed to have" meant.

:)
Thank you!

Uh,.. I have an old version of the American Heritage version (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618082506/qid=1127230530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/702-3074483-4172061).

Having several "competing" versions of what the "contrived" indoeuropeans
meant when THEY talked sounds like a good thing, so get as much as you
can or want to, such as that other book..! :)

I find that dictionary quite useful for getting to "base" meanings/implications
of indoeuropean based words. It sort of points at the "smell" of what our
words (english in my case) are "supposed to have" meant.

:)

I actually use the same dictionary, though annoyingly have to quote other dictionaries when online. If you'll notice here and in other threads I often point to the roots of words and how they were formed to point out what they were intended to mean before we bastardized them. I think there is a terrible effort being made primarily by lawyers to make it so words can mean anything. Because of this we call firing people, downsizing and we have Presidents pretending like they don't understand the use of the word 'is' in a question so they don't have to admit to lying.

Hae ae ae ae... Don't leave god on your chin. It tends to be rather acidic.

Unless your LOOKING to have some derma-peeling done..! :)

(( Grave and I go WAY back,.. so he knows my "weirdness" even better than
you do. Thanks for warning him of me though,.. in the abstract. ))

Actually when I first replied it sounded more harsh than I intended so I amended it to sound more like what it was, which was just me teasing you. I'm glad you took it that way.

Joc, unlike anyone I know (well,.. that MAY be an overstatement!), considers
words to be explicit in themselves in meaning, thus not requiring further
exploration as to what they mean to the individuals speaking them or hearing
them.

I can ALWAYS find more ways of saying the same thing,.. from a slightly (or
majorly) different angle.

Joc thinks I'm being argumentative when I do that. How many times must I
explain that I don't argue. To argue is to try to convince. I don't try to
convince, to change anyone's mind, about anything. I simply (though often
not SIMPLY) try to communicate what I mean by what I say.

I do love dogmatic dictionary addicts though. I tend to be one, as regards
the INITIAL meaning of words, often consulting the Dictionary of Indo-
European Roots for "base" meanings of words.

But,.. once a mind tries to explain what it "sees" to another mind, shades of
meaning need to be expressed for which the only near-adequate expression is
a metaphorical/impressionistic set of words. At that point the dictionary
meanings behind the words/terms used become very fluid, as they are shaded
by the other words used in context.

In other words, a mind can only express it's more "esoteric" structures
poetically.

We need to be poets to comprehend such things as god-stuff, and subtle
comedy,.. and The Daily Show.

See, you're missing the point. Finding different ways to say the same thing is necessary at times to get your point across. This is specifically the point of analogies, parables, metaphors, etc. All of these are used for different reasons but they are about adding clarity or wordcrafting to ideas. This to me is a great use of the language. I love exploring ideas.

My problem isn't with saying one thing two different ways, it's suggesting that saying something one way can have an infinite number of meanings. I'm interesting in exploring and further fleshing out ideas (which is what you guys are doing when discussing your big guy in the sky), but I'm not interested in finding how many different and incorrect ways one can use a word.

I'll explain. Let's take Christianity, for example. Now the dictionary will give you a basic definition of it, but we all know there are a number of different types of Christians. So one might argue that we mean different things when we say Christians. Well, if we do, we have to obligation to use a more specific term. So if you meant, say, Southern Baptists, then say, Southern Baptist. Using Christian is for when you are in need of an all-enveloping term for all Christians.

Take the alternate example of tree. The dictionary gives a basic, but sufficient example of that. Now if you say I climbed a tree to me, but you want me to think Spruce tree, then you should have used the term Spruce tree. Using tree is for when you are in need of an all-enveloping term for all trees.

If you want to get the bring across Southern Baptist or Spruce and you use Christian or tree to refer to them without use of the specific term with the idea that the listener needs the information, but you won't give it to them till they ask, then you are a poor communicator. That's the point.

There is a reason why a dictionary isn't 25 pages long. When there are better words, we should use them. If you are having trouble expressing your ideas, don't bastardize the language. Pick up a dictionary and learn how to better express yourself.

Disclaimer: All references to you/your after the first two paragraphs (Particularly the last two paragraphs) are meant to be universal you, not directed at Thur.

No word can have an infinite number of meanings.

It can only what meaning you assign it in any given instance.

There is a reason why a dictionary isn't 25 pages long. When there are better words, we should use them. If you are having trouble expressing your ideas, don't bastardize the language.
Well... good thing none of us have done that, eh? :D

No word can have an infinite number of meanings.

It can only what meaning you assign it in any given instance.

South Park begs to differ. :rolleyes:

If you beleive in a religion, you may as well beleive in whatever you see on TV and read.
Religion was just made a long time ago in order for leaders to contole their populace be saying that they have divine right to rule. Another thing it did was to keep people from comitting suicide because their lives were so miserable.

What I exerienced was a recognition,.. an insight,.. a realization,..
a "revelation".

It was the realization that it was better to be able to act than not to act,
and that which makes it easier for me to act, the comfort to accept reality
as it is, is for me my experience of god.

By comfort I mean not "freaking out", to put WAY too modern a term to it, or
not panicking. There must be a certain level of "comfort" (non-overwhelm) to
be able to act effectively in any given circumstance.

If you are too busy denying reality ("This CAN'T be happening to ME!!!"), or
overwhelmed with the possible courses to take ("What the F**K do I do
NOW!!?") you can't allow what you already know you need to do (in that
martial arts ZEN kinda way) to happen.

Aha... I think I gotcha... you came to a realisation that you already believed something? That there was something innate, that you only needed to realise, to access?

No word can have an infinite number of meanings.

It can only what meaning you assign it in any given instance.

Yes, but it can't have any meaning I assign it just because I want it to. Not if I like using English correctly. Otherwise, we could argue that we are actually complimenting a poster when we call them a "self-agrandizing jackass whose posts are less interesting that the writing in bathroom stalls because at least those rhyme" and the mods would be unable to do their job.

No, nobody ever called anyone that and it's not aimed at anyone, I was just trying to think of a strange insult.

If you beleive in a religion, you may as well beleive in whatever you see on TV and read.
Religion was just made a long time ago in order for leaders to contole their populace be saying that they have divine right to rule. Another thing it did was to keep people from comitting suicide because their lives were so miserable.
Golly, what a sad history mankind has.

That is why man's duty is to judge other's behavior, but not their "souls".

Evil acts need to be quashed by free men. Evil "souls" consume themselves in
their own internal friction powered by their own version (tool) of what I call
god.

Perhaps that is the place and the fire of Hell?

Hmmm,... <suddenly feels unduly profound>

Nyahh.. can't be that simple! Can it..?

That's about the only way I CAN see it.... our 'hell' or 'heaven' are the way we exist in the reality we perceive.

Yes, but it can't have any meaning I assign it just because I want it to. Not if I like using English correctly. Otherwise, we could argue that we are actually complimenting a poster when we call them a "self-agrandizing jackass whose posts are less interesting that the writing in bathroom stalls because at least those rhyme" and the mods would be unable to do their job.

No, nobody ever called anyone that and it's not aimed at anyone, I was just trying to think of a strange insult.
A wilful 'want' has nothing to do with most meanings you (we) assign, I agree, unless you are acting in fun.

That "self-agrandizing jackass" could very well be a compliment if the jackass takes it that way. I have seen an actual case of a person protesting the banning of someone who apparently insulted them.

Depends on what you mean by "the supernatural". Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?

how can anything be supernatural if you dont beleive in anything above natural, everything would just be natural.

Uh,.. I have an old version of the American Heritage version (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618082506/qid=1127230530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/702-3074483-4172061).

Having several "competing" versions of what the "contrived" indoeuropeans
meant when THEY talked sounds like a good thing, so get as much as you
can or want to, such as that other book..! :)

I find that dictionary quite useful for getting to "base" meanings/implications
of indoeuropean based words. It sort of points at the "smell" of what our
words (english in my case) are "supposed to have" meant.

:)

I have a three-volume set of the "Websters Third New International (Unabridged) Dictionary" (1959 edition), which I use quite extensively, just because it is good on the 'root' vocabulary. :)

A wilful 'want' has nothing to do with most meanings you (we) assign, I agree, unless you are acting in fun.

That "self-agrandizing jackass" could very well be a compliment if the jackass takes it that way. I have seen an actual case of a person protesting the banning of someone who apparently insulted them.

Indeed, I DO take it that way....;)

Indeed, I DO take it that way....;)

I agree that 'self-agrandizing jackass' could be taken as a compliment but it wasn't the entire insult. The insult in its entirety was better.

I agree that 'self-agrandizing jackass' could be taken as a compliment but it wasn't the entire insult. The insult in its entirety was better.

I'm not so sure about the rest... but I was willing to accept that much... :)

Oh, sure, you can CLAIM you didn't mean me....

*I'm just messing with you*

This is my take on it: god does not communicate. What happens in communication is a message is sent, in either verbal or written symbols, and a message "received," and of course what is received is filtered through a second mind, so will not be exactly what was sent. What you have in communication is two processes, one done by each person: sending and receiving; talking and listening; creating and re-creating. (The message is, in effect, re-created by the new mind the moment it appears in the new mind, the moment he "gets it").

God is not a communicator or a teacher, not a deliberate one. What we learn from him is done on our side of the relationship, alone.
I'd like to try and pick up on this, if I may.

In the Sikh religion, the essence of God is unbounded, unknowable and certainly beyond religious expression, but the manifestation of God precisely is communication - the divine Guru, inner teacher. In this conception, God has no need to become incarnate in this (or any other) fashion, but does so through grace. To what purpose?

Well, as best I can understand it, from a human perspective it is that through obedience to the teachings of the Guru, focusing on God, one can immerse oneself in ultimate reality, which is outside of selfish human attachments. If one were just to look inward or attempt to act in isolation, that would simply lead to selfishness and further attachments.

What I find fascinating about this point of view is that it has led to the Sikhs' scripture being held to be a living Guru, the Guru Granth Sahib; and, as a means of communication, a manifestation of the divine Guru itself. However, far from making their scripture a dogmatic representation of the 'one true way', Sikhs believe that God can also be found through most other religious faiths. Similarly, while they believe the goal of humanity is to merge with God, they also believe that this is best achieved in this life by living as a householder, participating fully in the community. "Realization of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is Truthful Living." (Guru Nanak, Sri Rag)

And this takes me to what could be a partial answer to Grave's question. What he feels as obligations to others (his family, the wider community), or as generosity of spirit, a desire for knowledge or to 'live right', could, in this belief system, be the voice of the Guru within, filtered through his pre-conceptions (in other words, his human attachments).

Which I think takes us to Thuriliacayo's conception of God: his realisation of "it is better to be able to act than not to act" as a manifestation of God has a direct parallel with the Sikh idea of attacking attachment through positive attitude.


(PS: Statutory apologies to any Sikhs and/or NS posters for any mis-representation of their views.)

And this takes me to what could be a partial answer to Grave's question. What he feels as obligations to others (his family, the wider community), or as generosity of spirit, a desire for knowledge or to 'live right', could, in this belief system, be the voice of the Guru within, filtered through his pre-conceptions (in other words, his human attachments).


It's a possible... but why multiply entities unnecessarily?

Why is my obligation... well, not JUST a sense of obligation? Why is my generosity not JUST something that happens?

Why is my generosity not a survival characteristic? Surely, an individual that is generous is increasing his/her chance of passing on genes, albeit, indirectly?

Or - to follow a slightly different path, surely the generous individual is an aid to the SPECIES? Or to the 'tribe'? Or the to 'family'?

If all the 'positive' aspects of humanity can be explained by more mundane reasoning... what is the 'purpose' of the 'Guru voice'?

It's a possible... but why multiply entities unnecessarily?

Why is my obligation... well, not JUST a sense of obligation? Why is my generosity not JUST something that happens?

Why is my generosity not a survival characteristic? Surely, an individual that is generous is increasing his/her chance of passing on genes, albeit, indirectly?

Or - to follow a slightly different path, surely the generous individual is an aid to the SPECIES? Or to the 'tribe'? Or the to 'family'?

If all the 'positive' aspects of humanity can be explained by more mundane reasoning... what is the 'purpose' of the 'Guru voice'?
With the caveat that I'm playing devil's advocate here, so may make a hash of this ........

I wouldn't disagree with any of your statements, and I broadly agree that, at a material level, they are sufficient explanations for the internal impulses. However, the counter-argument is that by identifying the Guru within yourself as the divine Guru, and thereby immersing yourself in God, you establish a link to the spiritual, or supernatural. And this, with the conception of God as unbounded and thus external to you, lifts you off your human attachments.

And this is important. If you percieve your generous impulses as having mundane explanations only, you risk a series of traps. You could confuse love and lust, altruism and self aggrandisement, group solidarity and fear of outsiders. So, by focusing on material outcomes, if your actions or aspirations are thwarted, you could become frustrated and thus bitter, cynical or angry.

If you identify the voice of the Guru as coming from within yourself only, your reflections on your motivations will reflect back just yourself and not take you outside yourself. This will make it more difficult for you to achieve balance and peace of mind. Or. looking at behaviour rather than psyche, identfying positive actions with an ultimate, external, reality helps you maintain a positive attitude and thus such actions.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Depends on what you mean by "the supernatural". Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?
how can anything be supernatural if you dont beleive in anything above natural, everything would just be natural.
There is a concept of supernatural that has nothing to do with ghosts, goblins and things that go bump in the night. It is a position based in the philosophy of metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies two kinds of things that exist: real things and unreal things. It defines existence as "everything that is" not limited to the material world (for instance, an idea is not material, but it most certainly "is"; ideas are unreal things that exist).

Now if you take existence to mean that "everything that is" is material only, then you get people listening to others saying "the spirit exists" and trying to manipulate what they hear to fit their belief... that spirit somehow exists in the material world. This is the bane of the materialist (that the ghosts are real and going to come and get 'im!).

This is where our modern idea of "Supernatural" comes from (looks to be an interesting new television series, by the way. Full of ghosts and goblins. ;))

But if we listen to what the metaphysicist is saying, he is not claiming reality for unreal things. He keeps "mental entities" in their place, in the imagination of the mind. That is where the supernatural exists, where the spirit exists; ideas, concepts, intuitions and feelings. Those are the method of knowing the spirit, as well as being the spirit; knowing through being.


If I may ramble on... When nature drops a dead log across a ravine above a steep set of cliffs, we call that a natural bridge, "put there" by nature. It's occurance happened without intent. When mankind makes a bridge across the same ravine, using wood planks, ropes and rivets, we call that artificial, unnatural, man-made. What is it that distinguishes the second bridge from the first? Intent. What makes for intent? An intelligent goal. Consciousness. Mind. This is what distinguishes natural from artificial. This, in my opinion, is what distinguishes the supernatural from the natural. The supernatural is what goes on "in your head".

With the caveat that I'm playing devil's advocate here, so may make a hash of this ........

I wouldn't disagree with any of your statements, and I broadly agree that, at a material level, they are sufficient explanations for the internal impulses. However, the counter-argument is that by identifying the Guru within yourself as the divine Guru, and thereby immersing yourself in God, you establish a link to the spiritual, or supernatural. And this, with the conception of God as unbounded and thus external to you, lifts you off your human attachments.

And this is important. If you percieve your generous impulses as having mundane explanations only, you risk a series of traps. You could confuse love and lust, altruism and self aggrandisement, group solidarity and fear of outsiders. So, by focusing on material outcomes, if your actions or aspirations are thwarted, you could become frustrated and thus bitter, cynical or angry.

If you identify the voice of the Guru as coming from within yourself only, your reflections on your motivations will reflect back just yourself and not take you outside yourself. This will make it more difficult for you to achieve balance and peace of mind. Or. looking at behaviour rather than psyche, identfying positive actions with an ultimate, external, reality helps you maintain a positive attitude and thus such actions.
It's brilliant. I don't understand about the "series of traps", though; how can anyone mistake love and lust, except through ignorance of one or both? same with the other concepts.

It's brilliant.
Thank you. I value your opinion. :)

I don't understand about the "series of traps", though; how can anyone mistake love and lust, except through ignorance of one or both? same with the other concepts.
OK, I think I was trying to point up that there is not always a clear distinction between selfish and generous impulses. The first binds you to your attachments, the second (in this belief system) offers you contact with ultimate reality, which is unbounded.

For example, I like to think of myself as a helpful, altruistic sort and at the same time a modest chap. So I get a kick out of helping people, but I don't actively seek recognition for my assistance. However, I am quite well aware of the fact that I like getting the recognition, and it's even better when unsolicited and best of all when it's given along with recognition of my modesty. And of course if my helping others furthers my own interests, well that's just gravy.

Now, at one level, this is not a problem. Whatever my motivations, if I've done good, good has been done and there's an end to it. The problem comes if the recognition is not given. If that's what I need, I may become cynical and/or stop trying to help. Alternatively, I might start (consciously or otherwise) focusing my help in areas where I benefit the most; and this, by degrees, could make my actions increasingly selfish. Not good. However, by consciously aligning myself with the Guru, and thence outside of my human limitations, I can transcend them and maintain a truly generous impulse.

Then there's the love/lust confusion. I most certainly have confused them in the past, and I don't think it's that uncommon (though more commonly reported - implicitly or explicitly - by men). I think the mistake here is to view lust as just a short-term phenomenom, whereas I see it as a relationship with the purely material aspects of the other, which can last a surprisingly long time. And, motivated by lust, I can be very generous, not to mention very happy indeed, and this I can mistake for love. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself: again in my experience, lust can co-exist with love, each can lead to the other or they can exist in isolation from the other. However, if a relationship is based only on lust, without love, it will, famously, sooner or later turn sour. But the lust can be attacked with love inspired by the Guru and so transformed or left behind.

The parallel I see here is with the Hindu conception of three states of personal being: sloth, passion and intellect. Each needs to be experienced, accepted and transcended, in order to attain union with the divine. What I find interesting about the Sikh religion is that, while the Hindu path typically employs aestheticism and isolation, the Sikh Gurus teach that this is best done in a practical, community-based life lived in the everyday.

Does this help?

the moment people will spell atheist right on the general forum will be the day i'll post something related to it as well. ;) no offense, folks.

now this'll sound real egoistic, arrogant+ignorant, but could someone sum up in a short post what you discussed so far? i'd love to join but fear going through that many posts.. :eek:

the moment people will spell atheist right on the general forum will be the day i'll post something related to it as well. ;) no offense, folks.

now this'll sound real egoistic, arrogant+ignorant, but could someone sum up in a short post what you discussed so far? i'd love to join but fear going through that many posts.. :eek:

I think it would be easier to sum up what we haven't discussed in the 2600 posts so far. The subject has pretty much been all over the place. I also doubt anyone has read every single post. I've probably only read about 100 or so pages.

For example, I like to think of myself as a helpful, altruistic sort and at the same time a modest chap. So I get a kick out of helping people, but I don't actively seek recognition for my assistance. However, I am quite well aware of the fact that I like getting the recognition, and it's even better when unsolicited and best of all when it's given along with recognition of my modesty. And of course if my helping others furthers my own interests, well that's just gravy.

Now, at one level, this is not a problem. Whatever my motivations, if I've done good, good has been done and there's an end to it. The problem comes if the recognition is not given. If that's what I need, I may become cynical and/or stop trying to help. Alternatively, I might start (consciously or otherwise) focusing my help in areas where I benefit the most; and this, by degrees, could make my actions increasingly selfish. Not good. However, by consciously aligning myself with the Guru, and thence outside of my human limitations, I can transcend them and maintain a truly generous impulse.

Then there's the love/lust confusion. I most certainly have confused them in the past, and I don't think it's that uncommon (though more commonly reported - implicitly or explicitly - by men). I think the mistake here is to view lust as just a short-term phenomenom, whereas I see it as a relationship with the purely material aspects of the other, which can last a surprisingly long time. And, motivated by lust, I can be very generous, not to mention very happy indeed, and this I can mistake for love. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself: again in my experience, lust can co-exist with love, each can lead to the other or they can exist in isolation from the other. However, if a relationship is based only on lust, without love, it will, famously, sooner or later turn sour. But the lust can be attacked with love inspired by the Guru and so transformed or left behind.

The parallel I see here is with the Hindu conception of three states of personal being: sloth, passion and intellect. Each needs to be experienced, accepted and transcended, in order to attain union with the divine. What I find interesting about the Sikh religion is that, while the Hindu path typically employs aestheticism and isolation, the Sikh Gurus teach that this is best done in a practical, community-based life lived in the everyday.

Does this help?
Yes, thanks. I like the idea of "consciously aligning" with the idea of god, as that describes well what I do and what I see in most religious folk (whether they are aware of it or not).

Your definition of "lust" is a bit too constrictive; relationships are never *strictly* physical (and hard to imagine such going on long without some other attachments forming!) even if they are seen as such. Personally, I have difficulty, though, seeing lust, for example, as a trap of physical attachments that will inevitably lead to bad stuff or get in the way of aligning oneself with the image of god. That the latter helps one rise above petty cynicism and such I cannot dispute, though, especially as my image of god is love.

<snip>

Your definition of "lust" is a bit too constrictive; relationships are never *strictly* physical (and hard to imagine such going on long without some other attachments forming!) even if they are seen as such. Personally, I have difficulty, though, seeing lust, for example, as a trap of physical attachments that will inevitably lead to bad stuff or get in the way of aligning oneself with the image of god. That the latter helps one rise above petty cynicism and such I cannot dispute, though, especially as my image of god is love.
I think I'm defing 'lust' in a somewhat totemic* way here.

I would broadly agree that lust need not lead to bad things, so long as it is recognised as such. I would also personally agree that relationships are never purely physical, but I think that could be where the danger arises: lust could be mistaken for more altruistic feelings, because they shade into one another. That could lead to bad decisions, the classic example being to marry the wrong person. Or, if people don't recognise the absence of higher feelings (because they are sated by lust) and so neglect to nuture that side of themselves. Again, assigning selfish motivations to lust (which I agree is slightly unfair, but this is the potential trap I am trying to illuminate) leads to attachment to material gratification.

I agree the attachment is not inevitable, but the argument is that it is alignment with the divine Guru (realised as love) that prevents it being so.

*Now there's a word I should probably check the meaning of before using so freely!

I think I'm defing 'lust' in a somewhat totemic* way here.

I would broadly agree that lust need not lead to bad things, so long as it is recognised as such. I would also personally agree that relationships are never purely physical, but I think that could be where the danger arises: lust could be mistaken for more altruistic feelings, because they shade into one another. That could lead to bad decisions, the classic example being to marry the wrong person. Or, if people don't recognise the absence of higher feelings (because they are sated by lust) and so neglect to nuture that side of themselves. Again, assigning selfish motivations to lust (which I agree is slightly unfair, but this is the potential trap I am trying to illuminate) leads to attachment to material gratification.

I agree the attachment is not inevitable, but the argument is that it is alignment with the divine Guru (realised as love) that prevents it being so.

*Now there's a word I should probably check the meaning of before using so freely!
Aye; recognition of the thing for what it is (self-awareness) is an important factor. I thought of that, too.