I see it as a good thing that you seem to be asking about religion,
I haven't used the word 'religion' for a long time, and your message makes
me think about why. Perhaps it's because there seem so few fundamental
differences in those religions most commonly discussed. That's a pretty
commonly noted thing, though, that doesn't need my reporting or cataloguing.
A few years ago, I 'discovered' a noteworthy 3-divide regularity in
religious practitioners' responses _within_ individual religious systems.
Each religion seems to have a far-'right', a far-'left', and a middle
view/application of its beliefs. Fascinatingly, even those people calling
themselves atheists, non-believers, and agnostics divide into the 3 stances,
as well. Makes sense, I suppose, when you consider that statistically we're
bell-curved on most issues, so why not on religion?
My own beliefs about the Unknown, which seems the foundation of our
discussion and search, are an amalgam of theories, phrases, and practices.
I choose those which resonate with me, which are above all pragmatic, and
as logical as I can manage about the Unknown.
Again, your asking has made me think about my thoughts on this wonderful
topic! A momentary assessment would have me say that my beliefs about the
Unknown have deviated little on the most pragmatic issues since I was 11
years old, the time when the religions I had practiced and somewhat
understood from the local leaders of the religions were countered by authors
of many new books I'd found with beliefs that seemed more logical and
loving. Intermittently, for years after that mind-opening reading and
practicing the more logical and loving beliefs, I'd move into and out of
religious groups' meetings, always noting how logically, lovingly---and
pragmatically---the people seemed to be behaving. And I saw a surprising
uniformity in the responses in all of the groups! Again, I suppose it's
really not that shocking; but it surprised me, nevertheless.
My own response to the groups were positive, but I kept feeling that the
practices, the jargon---especially the jargon---were frequently off-putting
to me. Therefore, I've sought and found practices and jargon which 'suit'
me. They tend to keep me positive and in the present----and, for me, they
work in the ways that I want them to work.
If you were to conclude from all of this that I am happy, you would be
2008/10/29 Christopher C Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 06:26 -0400, Judy Prince wrote:
> > Of course I am sorry that you feel personally insulted by my message,
> > Christopher.
> Hi Judy, almost everything, if not all, has been a return to Kant on
> space as you suggested, so no worries otherwise.
> It is perhaps (or should I say possibly) not a good idea to accuse
> someone on a public forum of being a sad cocaine addict. The small
> matter of criminal and civic libel which may force the very supportive
> and generous academic institution which funds and hosts this list to
> close it down and thereby, such an accusation becomes a denial of
> freedom of speech, which for Kant is a spatial question.
> It is quite incorrect to say that the differences between Kant and
> Einstein are because Kant did not have access to non-euclidean geometry.
> Kant did have access to non-euclidean geometry and Einstein did not say
> this. The number of times I see this claim is the number of times that
> Kant and Einstein are not read, as if ideas have become commodities on
> supermarket shelves that can be picked up at random while belief is
> transferred to a public relations discourse as the art of not telling
> the truth and not getting caught while doing so. Public relations
> henceforth is a religion which denies freedom of religion.
> Maybe we differ over freedom of religion. While I have a strong belief
> in freedom of religion I am uncertain as to your position on this
> question. While, as Marx said, religion remains the opiate of the
> masses, there can be no freedom of religion. It does appear that you
> have positioned religion as an opiate, thereby denying the right to
> freely practice religion.
> Anyways, best wishes, Chris Jones.