There is one choice, 1 vote for grant's debate

Religions beginings

• religions begin

  as concepts. Chemical addiction to concepts create religions. A concept is a finger pointing in a direction. Religion is a sucking on the finger rather than a looking at where it may be pointing.

  Voted for by grant.

  View 19 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    like, the chemical addiction to the concept you just created.
  • 
    grant
    August 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    your point?
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    August 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Religion

    Jesus claimed that religion is false. I agree as do many Christians. Religion being a ritualistic belief system. In Jesus' teachings; rituals are not what it's all about and tends to become too complicated, for the average person to follow. Yes Christians are addicted; addicted to a relationship that never fails,....never fails you. Not addicted to rituals or concepts. Concept?? Way more to it than that. Jesus is my ultimate love interest, is more like it.
  • 
    grant
    August 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Does this mean that when you say "christians are addicted; addicted to a relationship that never fails" that you are an advocate for relationship addiction? The "relationship" an alcaholic has with alcahol also cannot fail. "Till death shall they part".
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    August 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    The alcohol kills the alcoholic

    Jesus gives eternal life. Please....You have better ones than that Grant. Alcohol is a dependancy. Funny that you and Auxiliar both want to talk about addiction and belief together. You both are nearly quoting Bible scripture and do not realise it. ----- Yes, all humans are addicted to something. that is the essence of the curse called temptation. Jesus is the only Good way to replace that addiction. All others will fall short of the mark sooner or later, or at physical death.
  • 
    grant
    August 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    All religious concepts are symbols for all mankind (aux & grant included). One does not need to be a member of any of these (finger sucking) cults to consider the directions indicated by the finger. If one objectifies a concept (the worship of objects, e.g the symbols of concepts rather than what they may symbolise), physical death will indeed end this physical relationship. In this context a religion (the worship and objectification of concepts) will be mortal rather than eternal. The life course of this mortal worship (a form of escape from the reality of physical mortality) would be described, by me, as a form of living death. One addiction replacing another. One may just happen to have a physically healthier looking mask. One masks the pain on the inside (the brain's neural memory of confusion induced trauma), the other (alcahol) masks this inside pain by aneasthetising the brain's neural system. Physical longevity to experience phenomenal existance would be the only difference between the two. The failure in the understanding of this existance is an inseperable quality of both. It is easy to be fooled by (physical) appearances. To quote Watts; ""Most atheists and agnostics are neurotic, whereas most simple catholics are happy and at peace with themselves. Therefore the views of the former are false, and of the latter true"". "Even if the observation is correct, the reasoning on it is absurd. It is to say, "you say there is a fire in the basement. You are upset about it. Because you are upset, there is obviously no fire." The agnostic, the sceptic, is neurotic, but this does not imply a FALSE PHILOSOPHY; it implies the discovery of facts to which he does not know how to adapt himself. The intellectual (catholic) who tries to escape from neurosis by escaping from the facts is merely acting on the principle that "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."" A.W.Watts. In other words, neurosis and the masked efforts to escape neurosis is ALL neurotic.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    my point: doesn't your concept negate its own veracity? That is, that if one was to say that all concepts created by the mind are just chemically induced (a 'want' to believe) then that concept in itself is also created through chemical induction, and therefore most likely untrue (or, put better, as valid as any other concept) so, while your theory is not a paradox, it is however, unable to support itself as a valid conclusion.
  • • 
      grant
      August 15, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      for techno

      To clarify, I'm not poo pooing chemistry. All existance can be considered as chemical. There just seems to be some human resistance to the reality of the constant flow & change of it all. It appears to be only a human brain resistance. The brain doesn't appear to like the insecurity of it all. This dislike or un-ease seems to result in the over consumption of earthly resources. We tend to eat for the brain and not the body as if we need to cram every experience into the shortest possible time. We have a thing about time. As technology speeds things up things still dont seem to happen quick enough. We want it all now without even knowing what now is. Or, more to the point, dont really know what IT is (that we want). If we think IT to be something OUT THERE, then out there is always out there. We concieve of heavens and gods out there. We seem to want to avoid IN HERE. In here, as in past emotional and confusing trauma, is concieved of pain that must be avoided. I mean, who would want to go through childbirth again. Maybe home is experience prior to birth. Home is where IT's at. Maybe if we dont get it this time around another birth (with its unavoidable pains), life, death will cycle again and again. Do we really want to do it over & over?
  • 
    grant
    August 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I dont know why this needs to be constantly repeated, but I have only presented my opinion. My opinion could change anytime. This is called changing one's mind. To just say that everything else is just as valid does not argue my points at all. Give me the "else". With no argument I dont have anything else (from you) to change my mind for. All you seem to be saying is that I may be wrong without suggesting where I might be wrong. Why sit on the fence? Nothing is more valid or less valid. It is individual. It is like you are suggesting that there is a thing which is universal like a universal truth. Well, maybe there is. I dont know. If you do lets hear it. As for "valid conclusion", this sounds like THE answer (to life, everything & the universe). We already know that answer. Its "42". (oh, and if my words "negate their own veracity", where do they? which words specifically?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "do we really want to do it over & over?" As long as both the brain and the body did not object, accordingly, there would be no problem. You seem to always refer to some sort of "ghost in the machine" as if your soul is in competition with your mind. If I am wrong, please clarify.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    If you want an ultimate truth, I can tell you, its God- but obviously you dont want to listen. Seeing your complete state of hopelessness, conformity and submission would seem more intelligent than an approach involving recognition, self-discovery and denial.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    your comment seems to negate its own veracity, but never mind, you have clarified your case. As long as we both understand that this cannot be accepted as a 'knowable' observation.
  • • 
      grant
      August 16, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      my observations are my observations. The fact that you dont find them acceptable does not mean that "we both" dont. You are confusing me with you. Churches offer places where individuality is quashed in favour of a grey, indoctrinated, subordinate glob of one personality for all involved. Somewhere where nice means just agreeing for the sake of agreement. Not for the sake of personal conviction.
  • 
    grant
    August 16, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "It's god". Thats it? I'm all ears. Please describe this god. What is it?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Revelation will bring the understanding you seek. You can either snuff at this, and likewise miss the opportunity, or expand your search for knowledge and attempt to let ones mind become accustomed to such a notion. Revelation is found through allowing God(Hebrew) a chance to reveal Himself to You, by giving it a shot. This ultimately depends on you wholeheartedly 'giving christiantiy a go'. Note, wholeheartedly should be underlined.
  • Random Angel
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    AH!

    we have a Conundrum!
  • Random Angel
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    :)

    it's not conformity it's unity.
  • Random Angel
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    either way

    i'm praying for you both. God Bless and watch over you!
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    explain. Please, enlighten me; its so often I get told by other Christians that I am so darn wrong, yet they reply with the simplest answers presenting the biggest flaws. I am being totally honest, Christianity to me seems to have so many flaws its not funny, but that's the thing- it's not about what I think ,but what God knows. So please, enlighten me. I wish to know. And by the sounds of it, so does grant.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: