"a" or "the" true religion

[Ciel]

So can we say, true religion is ones own direct connectiveness to ones own God.It's possible if we understand how the many claim their own. and how source and consciousness in world mind creates substructure through universal form. As grains of sand in the realisation that they originated from something much greater than themselves.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Any reward from any agent?

"There is no one true religion, save the taking care of orphans and Widows..."

I don't think fault can be found in that "religion" Sus. Do you?

v/r

Q

Taking care of widows and orphans is like doing the work of the Red Cross or the Medicins sans Frontieres folks.

Do you think that it is a religion, unless the doer aspires to some returns from the ultra biological world, say, some god or some cosmic system like that in Buddhism where Nirvana is achieved -- whatever that is, though they look forward to it as to the bliss of beatific vision among medieval Christians.

Anyway, I understand that for you effectively there is no one true religion.

In effects, for you, doing good to widows and orpans is one way of having a true religion or practising one; and there are several ways to doing good to widows and orphans, and analogous people.

Some Christian missionaries in my place have gotten in trouble with the kind of good they do for and with widows and orphans -- certainly you don't ascribe to that kind.

As to widows and orphans, they might not object, if they are otherwise derving some benefits for keeping body soul together.


Here is my own drafted definition of religion:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power favorably toward himself.

So, in my definition of religion, doing good to widows and orphans is not a religion, it is what I would call a philanthropy.

No, I have nothing against philanthropy even with rewards from human societies in terms of praise and awards.

MY purpose is to fine-tune my own ideas of religion. And to me philanthropy without expectation of rewards from the ultra-biological world is not religion as people would understand religion, which is what I would think they do, that is, the concept of religion stated above.

Pachomius2000

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

True religion is my very own one...

Hi all,

It my humble opinion there is a true religion. It is the one that fills you heart with the certain knowledge that the path you take is the correct one for you.

Religion is a tool by which we find our path to our God(s). Since none of us are the same I think it is foolish to think that we could all find the same path by which to get there.

Some religions are threatened more then others but the fact remains, when you find the religion that fills you and answers your need, then it is for all intents and purposes the one and only true religion for you.

When you are part of a religion and do not feel comfortable with it then its clear you have not found your true religion yet and should continue to seek the path.

I know that this sounds like a cop out, but it really is that simply to say. It is by no means the easy to do. I didn't know the true religion for me for many years. I was lucky that I finally found the religion that fills me completely. Many are not, many don't chose to even look becuase it takes to much time or effort on thier part or would require them to look at things that they just don't want to.

But in the end, no, I do not agree that there is no true religion.

My proposition is not there is no true religion.

It is instead there is no one true religion.


Do I read you correctly then from your whole post that there is a true religion for everyone satisfied with his own religion.

Can you consequently also accept the logical conclusion that since everyone has his own true religion, there is no one true religion?

From my own part, I tend to maintain that there is no one true religion, or there are all kinds of true religions for people individually or for each person insofar as his religious aspirations are satisfactorily met; but there is no only one true religion like there is only one true Julius Caesar.

Pachomius2000

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Points of departure

So can we say, true religion is ones own direct connectiveness to ones own God.It's possible if we understand how the many claim their own. and how source and consciousness in world mind creates substructure through universal form. As grains of sand in the realisation that they originated from something much greater than themselves.

I honestly have difficulty in understanding your post, dear Ciel, but nothing to blame on you. It's my own limitation.

However, I seem to see that you have a different approach to the question of "a" or "the" true religion.

I guess you observe that in Christianity, Islam, and very probably also in Judaism, there is a very hot topic about which is the true religion or true faith or true church.

Every so often I pass by a church belonging to the Bible Baptist denomination. And there is a sign outside saying that its church or its denomination is the only true church of Jesus Christ. I could be wrong in what I read; please correct me then.

The Mormons claim to be the one true church of Jesus Christ, or something to that effect. But are they not divided into at least two factions?

And of course we are all aware that the Vatican Roman Catholic Church claims to be one and only true religion, faith, church for mankind.

My point is this: we must understand true religion not from the standpoint of some criteria from beyond the biological world, but from the standpoint of what people are comfortable in terms of their psychology for a religion.

Thus all talks about only one true religion always have this one premise, that there is a cosmological immutable order for religion beyond human biology and psychology, like for example in monotheistic religions it is God conceived as possessing choices which are permanently fixed from all eternity, or like in Buddhism with its unchangeable metaphysics of continual rebirths until Nirvana is attained and then no more rebirths (but up to the present I still can't grasp what that Nirvana cosmos is all about).

In the concrete, religion is like cuisine or even like hairdo or even just like couture. There is no one true cuisine, no one true hairdo, no one true couture; but people need food, every critically; also prefer to have hair than go bald; and to present standards of decency and aesthetics go about clothed than glaringly naked.

Pachomius2000

 

[Ciel]

Susma,thank you for your reply.
It appears you already have the answer. Interesting comparison to the materialistic of clothing and food and aesthetics. Yes, all are clothed by the subtle form of the religion of their own choosing. So can we take it one step further.........Only God is naked, yet bathed in radiant light, and feeds the self with wonder and awe, if we can also stand naked before God in the understanding that it really doesnt matter whatever name we choose to call our self chosen religion, except that it is one of honour, love and respect for each other and our creator to help create a better world. On earth religion is chosen by the aesthetic sense of inner self, a reflective quality of higher self in direct connection. I have often felt how would it be to throw all the historic learnings away so that humanity can stand naked in the essential essence of all the many diverse religious cultures untill they find their own, for it is the one that reflects their wholeness and completeness. They are at one with themselves and God, and having no further need to search for the reason why they are here the world can move on to build a life of aesthetic quality that progresses and elevates all.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Re: True religion is my very own one...

Do I read you correctly then from your whole post that there is a true religion for everyone satisfied with his own religion.

Yes you do. Eveyone has one true religion. Sometimes it takes them awhile and alot of soul searching to find it. But for the purpose of this conversation, yes.

Can you consequently also accept the logical conclusion that since everyone has his own true religion, there is no one true religion?

No and yes, let me explain. No, I do not accept that to be true, in that for me there is one true religion, for you there is one true religion. Simple as that. Yes, I do agree in that I think what you are getting at here is not the actually belief but more of a physical thing. I.E. of all the religions of the world only one can be true.

From my own part, I tend to maintain that there is no one true religion, or there are all kinds of true religions for people individually or for each person insofar as his religious aspirations are satisfactorily met; but there is no only one true religion like there is only one true Julius Caesar.

I tend to be much more careful about how I view this subject. For example, me for there is only one true religion. I could think that everyone else has it wrong (and have come across many who do beleive that way) but I chose not to be so narrow minded and realize that there are many paths that lead to the same place.

For example, we are all going to Wal-Mart. I take one route, you take another. Does the route matter so long as we both get there? We both go to the same one and only place.

 

[Ain_Soph]

Interesting topic. To me religion is a highly personal experience. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

In order for there to be "a" one true religion I would think there would have to "a(n)" ultimate truth. Instead of posting how I feel about truth, im just gonna quote Krishnamurti.

Is there such a thing as Truth apart from personal opinion?

Is it that we are all so terribly personal? What I see, what you see, is the only truth? My opinion and your opinion are the only facts we have? That is what the question implies, that everything is relative. So goodness is relative, evil is relative, love is relative. And as everything is relative -that is, not whole, complete truth- then our action, our affection in personal relationship is relative, and can be ended whenever we like, whenever it doesn't please us, and so on. That is the implication of this question.

Now is there such a thing as truth, apart from personal opinion, personal belief, personal perception? This question has been asked by the ancient Greeks and Hindus, and by the Buddhists. And it is one of the strange facts about Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged. To doubt, to question. And in Western religions, this is rather put down. If you doubt, it is called heresy. So apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, one must find out for oneself whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute and not relative truth.

Now how are you going to find out? If we say that personal opinion, personal perception, is relative, and there is no such thing as absolute truth, then truth is relative. And our behavior, our conduct, our way of life will accordingly be relative, casual, not complete, not whole, and therefore fragmentary. And we are trying to find out if there is such a thing as truth that is not just personal opinion, personal perception.

If this question is put to you, how would you find out if there is truth that is absolute, complete, which is not just relative and always changing with the climate of personal opinion? How does your mind, the intellect, or thought find out? Does this interest you? Because here you are inquiring into something that demands putting aside that which is false. That is the only way to proceed. For if we have an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept of truth, or of love or whatever, those are the very barriers that prevent us from moving further.

Can one honestly investigate an illusion? Does the mind live in illusion? Or do we have illusions about everything, about people, about nations, about religion, about God? How do illusions come into being? How does one have an illusion, what is the root of it? What do we mean by the word illusion? It comes from the Latin, ludere, which means "to play". So the root meaning is to play, to play with something that is not actual. The actual is what is happening, what is actually taking place, whether it is called good, bad, or indifferent. And when one is incapable of facing what is actually taking place in oneself, then to escape from that is to create illusion.

So if one is unwilling or afraid to face, or wants to avoid, what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates an illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement away from what is. Can we accept that as the meaning of the word illusion, moving away from "what is", and go on from there?

The next question is: can we avoid this movement, this escape from actuality? So then we ask, what is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, the actual responses, ideas, the actual belief, the actual opinion you have. And to face that is not to create illusion. Have we gone this far in our investigation? Because otherwise you can't go further.

So as long as there are illusions, opinions, perceptions, based on the avoidance of "what is", these must be relative -There must be relativeness. This is bound to be so when there is a movement away from the fact, from what is happening, from "what is". In understanding "what is", it is not your personal opinion, not your personal perception that judges "what is", but actual observation of "what is". One cannot observe what is actually going on if you say my belief dictates the observation, my conditioning dictates the observation. Then it is avoidance of the understanding of "what is".

I wonder if we've got it. Are we doing this? Actually doing it-seeing, perceiving what is actual, your actual belief, your actual sense of dependency, your actual competitiveness, and not moving away from but observing it? That observation is not personal. But if you say "I must", or "I must not", or "I must better myself", then it becomes personal and therefore relative. Whereas if we can look at what is actually taking place, there is then complete avoidance of any form of illusion.

Can we do this? You may agree verbally, but can we actually perceive our dependency, whether on a person, a belief, and ideal, or on some experience that has given us a great deal of excitement? That dependence will inevitably create illusion. So can we observe the fact that we are dependent?

So in the same way we are going to find out if there is such a thing as absolute truth -if you are interested in this, because this has been asked not only be the present questioner, but by monks who have given there life to this, by philosophers, by every religious person who is not institutionalized, but is deeply concerned with life, with reality and truth. So if one is really concerned about what truth is, one has to go into it very, very deeply.

First of all, one has to understand what reality is. What is reality? That which you perceive, that which you touch, that which you taste, when you have pain, and so on. So reality is sensation and the reaction to that sensation, the response to the sensation as an idea, and that idea is created by thought. So thought has created reality - the marvelous architecture, the great cathedrals of the world, the temples, the mosques, and the idols that are put in them, the images, all are created by thought. And we say, that is reality, because you can touch it, you can taste it, you can smell it.

So we are saying that all the things that thought has created -the knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge through science, through mathematics, and so on- are reality. But nature is not created by thought. That tree, the mountains, the rivers, the waters, the deer, the snake, is not created by thought; it is there. But out of the tree we make a chair; that's created by thought. So thought has created the actual world in which we live, but nature, including the environment, is obviously not created by thought. Then we ask, is truth reality? One perceives that thought has created the world in which we live, but thought has not created the universe. Thought can inquire into the universe. The cosmologists, the astrophysicists, pursue their inquiry through thought, and they will come to certain conclusions, certain hypotheses, and try to prove those hypotheses, always through thought. So thought is relative, and therefore, whatever it creates, in whatever directions it moves, it must be relative, it must be limited.

So the mind is no longer in illusion, that is the first thing. It has to hypotheses, no hallucinations, no delusions, it doesn't want to grasp something, or create an experience that it calls truth -which most people do. So the mind has now brought order into itself. It has order, there is no confusion due to illusions, delusions, hallucinations, experiences. So the mind, the brain, has lost its capacity to create illusions. Right? Then what is truth? That is, what is the relationship between reality -in the sense that we have explained- and that which is not created by thought? Is there something that is not the product of thought? Can we go on with this?

That is, are our minds now, sitting here under these trees, on a rather cool day, are our minds free from every form of illusion? Otherwise you cannot possibly find out the other. Which means -is your mind completely free of any confusion? So that it is absolute order. Because how can a confused, disorderly mind, a mind that is in turmoil, ever find what truth is? It can invent. It can say, there is truth, or there is no truth. But only a mind that has a sense of absolute order, a mind that is completely free from every form of illusion, can proceed to find out.

There is something rather interesting here, if you are interested in it. The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to find out, going outward. They are investigating the world around them, matter, always moving outward. But if you start inward, the "me" is also matter -thought is matter- so if you can go inward, then you are moving from fact to fact. Therefore, you begin to discover that which is beyond matter. That's up to you.

This is a very serious affair; it is not just something for an hour one morning. One has to give one's life to this, not move away from life. Life is my struggles, anxiety, fears, boredom, loneliness, sorrow, my misfortunes, and all the regrets -all that is my life. I must understand that and go through that, not move away from it. Then, if you have gone through it, there is such a thing as absolute truth.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Secularist state best for religion

First, about Krishnamurti's thoughts, I honestly confess I am not so sure what exactly his position is in regard to my question whether there is only one true religion or there is no one true religion.

Do people here know of any software by which we can feed paragraphs after paragraphs of a writer's works for it to come out with brief statements on what his positions are and their scores on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 the highest.

Horror of horrors, we might see the computer churning out with inexorable logic conflicting statements from the same author -- which is more the case than that the computer is turning out rubbish.

That's always the trouble with people who write so profusely and so seemingly for me vaguely like you never really or I get to know precisely what their positions are.

(Something Bush is accusing Kerry for. But Kerry has come out now very explicitly attacking the war launched by Bush on Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq. And predictably as Kerry and his people feared, Bush has harped on the lack of 'patriotism' in Kerry -- what with the U.S. at war, etc.)


Back to the question about the true religion or true religions, on my part, I will be precise, there is no one true religion, period.

So, for me I practise the religion I find myself most comfortable with, and which does not get me in trouble with the law, but enables me to get along well with everyone.

The trouble is not everyone is disposed to get along well with people like me, namely, those people very strong about their religion is the only one true religion. For example, Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists who are not happy to say the least with how the rest of mankind is not acting according to the will of Allah or God.

What to do? Education, of the mind and of the heart, the first to acquaint people with the facts of the world and man, and the second to instill in man the habit of tolerance of other people's religious ideologies and rituals -- of course on the assumption that they don't encroach on the rights of other people to get along in ordering their lives in the conduct of their religion.

In this respect I tend to favor an essentially secularist state which acts as a kind of referee in upholding on the one hand the freedom of religion and on the other to keep in check all the insane actuations from fanatical beliefs and observances.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Definition of religion and true religion

To talk about a or the true religion, I think it is necessary first to define religion. And here is my own drafted definition of religion:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

On that definition of religion, the true-ness of a religion or the religion has to consider the unknown power.

By unknown I mean not something that is not known at all, but something whose operations we cannot be certain of as regards whether it operates at all or how, where, when, and other incidentals of operation.

The existence of the unknown power is assumed or presumed on the basis of belief. That is why I state that religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power.

Believing therefore the existence of an unknown power, and remember by unknown I mean the operations -- not the very existence of the entity, we can now proceed to discuss whether there are true religions or there is only one true religion.

Now then, on my own drafted definition of religion, I maintain that there is no one true religion, but there are true religions. True religions are those that possess all the elements of my definition of religion.

At present my religion is not exactly any of the established church organized religions of Christianity, but I do have one, and it consists in the belief in a God Who is personal and can be related to and with, but whose reactions are not always favorable to my expectations but at times I believe to be in accordance with my expectations.

And I also incorporate in my own customized religion most of the broad purely doctrinal teachings and the traditional practical moralistic dictates of Christianity.


At this point I think the question of a or the true religion is not as inviting a topic for posters here to contribute to as I had hoped for. So I am starting a more concrete topic on Religion talk and lbm talk, lbm standing for loose bowel movement.

This topic in a new thread I hope will be more productive and certainly less susceptible to subtle confusions where I seem to notice that people tend to fail to attend to the minutiae of my meanings on a or the true religion.

Pachomius2000 aka Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Shouldn't we consult the unknown power?

I said in the preceding post that:

Believing therefore the existence of an unknown power, and remember by unknown I mean the operations -- not the very existence of the entity, we can now proceed to discuss whether there are true religions or there is only one true religion.

Now I am asking myself that having taking for granted that the unknown power exists and I call it God, and I consider Him to be possessed of personhood, then shouldn't I consult Him about His say on how He would want people or me in particular to relate to and with Him?

As a matter of fact I have been consulting Him, but He has not shown Himself up to the present to be interested in responding to me.

There are people who claim to have received His responses on how He wants to be related to and with. And they also claim to possess certainty as to His responding and as to the nature of the responses.

The sad fact is that the responses received by these people are conflicting. Witness how antagonistic among themselves are the believers in one God, namely, Judaists, Christians, and Muslim, and also within each faction there are groups also quarreling among themselves, to the point of killing each other.

The conclusion is that the unknown power and let us call it God is indifferent how humans relate to and with Him; or He prefers to let humans figure out what His responses are, and to sort them out so as to achieve if ever a workable concord of responses claimed by them to come from God.

So, in the silence of this God, it is up to each one of us who feel the need of religiion or of a God, to figure out for himself how to relate to and with Him.

And accordingly for my part I maintain that there is no one true way of relating to and with Him.

As to the maintenance of peace among individuals each claiming to possess his kind of true religion and to act out his own true religion, I can't see any solution except to call in the civil power of the state, which should for the sake of all people with their own kinds of true religions be purely secularist, and be punctual to tp knock the heads of people who get violent towards others in the name of their true religion, effectively making them change or adopt religious beliefs and practices more conducive to harmonious communal life.

Pachomius2000 aka Susma Rio Sep

 

[Lady_Selune]

Re: Definition of religion and true religion

At this point I think the question of a or the true religion is not as inviting a topic for posters here to contribute to as I had hoped for. So I am starting a more concrete topic on Religion talk and lbm talk, lbm standing for loose bowel movement.
Pachomius2000 aka Susma Rio Sep

How very rude and arrogant of you. I will make a point to avoid reading any more of your posts.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Re: Points of departure

The Mormons claim to be the one true church of Jesus Christ, or something to that effect. But are they not divided into at least two factions?

There have been many more than two "factions" or "denominations" of Mormons, and there is a great deal of acrimony between them, as many of them claim that they are the only "real" Mormons.

There is, of course, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. They are the largest denomination of Mormons, claiming something like 11 million members around the world. There is, though, much controversy over that number, as they use the number of people baptized into the church, while many less than that total are actually active in the church in an ongoing basis. Some estimates I have seen claim that only about 25 per cent of that number are "active" members.

Then there is the Reogranized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This denomination now calls itself the Community of Christ, and is headquartered in Independence, Missouri. This group came into existence after the death of Joseph Smith, started by those who believed that Smith's son, Joseph Smith III, and not Brigham Young, was the rightful inheritor of his father's place at the head of the church. This group claims 250,000 members in 50 nations.

After these two denominations, come the smaller and more esoteric (I'm trying to be polite here) groups, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (although they go by other names as well). The FLDS are probably the largest and best known of a number of fundamentalist sects that grew from what Joseph Smith began. The FLDS live in several communities, but their largest is probably Colorado City, on the Arizona-Utah border, just north of the Grand Canyon. Among other things, the FLDS practice polygamy. There are no reliable numbers on the size of this group's membership. This is a very controversial group, much in the news lately because a number of their members are in the process of moving to a compound in Texas. The Salt Lake City church is adamant that these folks are not Mormon, and that there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist Mormon". For information on this group, I would recommend the book Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer. The book is about much more than just this one group, but it is a good place to start in learning about them, with the caveat that the book is not complimentary about them at all.

I read somewhere recently that there have been something like 250 offshoots of the Mormon church since it's inception. Most of those groups were very small and most are not in existence any longer. However, the three groups I mentioned above are all very much in current operation, and at least two of the three - the Salt Lake City Mormons and the FLDS - are good examples of groups who insist that theirs is the only true church on the face of the earth.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

I love your attitude, LittleMiss.

God bless you, my LittleMissAttitude.

To me and I believe all men and women believers in free unrestrained discourse, you exercise critical comment, tempered with politeness. And that is what an internet message is all about.

After these two denominations, come the smaller and more esoteric (I'm trying to be polite here) groups, such as the Fundamentalist Church . . .


Tell me honestly and you can dispense with the politeness here, have I been rude and arrogant?*


Back to "a or the true religion", about the Mormons being splintered into several groups, that is the normal or the norm in the developmental history of every religion. And for this reason we have to examine our concepts on the true religion from that point of departure, namely, that each of so many religions claiming to be each itself being exclusively the true one.

So that if you are in charge of running a community, say even just a nursery school, and parents ask for special concessions for their children enrolled in your school on grounds of religion, you will have to formulate a policy whereby you can determine what is a true religion, in order to grant the requested for concessions -- otherwise your school will be a bedlam.

Pachomius2000

*I confess to love humor, a believer that humor is a sure vehicle of genuine honest insights; and the opposite of humor is a guaranteed obstruction and obstacle to genuine honest insights.

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

as im aware the fact that you shall give no sh8t about it I love you Susma )




ironically enough in turkish 'Susma*' means 'Do not stop talking, keep going..' hmmm...




*from the word SUS as silent MA as the negative suffix

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Susma Rio Sep, my name, figure that out.

as im aware the fact that you shall give no sh8t about it I love you Susma )




ironically enough in turkish 'Susma*' means 'Do not stop talking, keep going..' hmmm...




*from the word SUS as silent MA as the negative suffix

Persona, I love you in return, most chastely though; because some people might collapse in a swoon for reading a guy saying 'I love you' to another guy.

Shall we form a mutual back-slapping society? Hehehehehe...

Thanks for your Turkish etymology and meaning of Susma. I like it. And what an happy accidental Freudian slip the random cosmos has played on my name in Turkish.

Tell you what, figure out my name, Susma Rio Sep. If you get it right, I will gift you with an online copy of the quintessential fuzzy classic of a mystic work, "The cloud of Unknowing".

Best and fondest regards, and thanks for the nice pat on my bruised back, specially when I am now nursing some depression for Brian's closing down my thread on Religion Talk and LBM Talk. Well, that's life and getting along with the ups and downs of life.

Pachomius2000

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

oh man .... that was quite a search

oh man, do you live like all the other human beings? meaning do you eat food? have shower? sh*t/p*ss/love? or are you someone/thing living in the computer?

The associations among testosterone, physical development, social dominance, and antisocial behaviour during early adolescence were assessed in a sample of boys followed from 6 to 13 years. Saliva testosterone level was positively correlated with height, and uncorrelated with measures of fatness, including the body mass index. Physical aggression and social dominance were not significantly correlated. Regression analyses revealed that testosterone level and body mass additively predicted social dominance, whereas only body mass predicted physical aggression. Thus, early adolescents with high levels of testosterone were more likely to be socially dominant, especially if they had a large body mass. Those who had a large body mass were more likely to be physically aggressive, independently of their testosterone level. The observed pattern of correlations between testosterone, body mass, dominance, and physical aggression offers an interesting example of the complex hormone-physique-behaviour relations at puberty. They support the hypothesis that testosterone level and social dominance are related, and that the association between testosterone level and physical aggression is probably observed in contexts where physical aggression leads to social dominance.

did i win? or wtf?

and im quite aware of the fact that you are practising medicine without a license, with help from a pharmicist friend.. maybe

 

[Chela]

Truly, there is one religion.

Different religions exist for different times and cultures. Some cultures stress a certain objective. Others give an outline of concepts. Some make use of faith a primary tool. Others make use of will as a primary tool.

The science of Kabbalah is seen in many more religions that what people know. People are very ignorant to this science that resounds itself in every major religion. Yes, even religions such as Buddhism and Central American Indians.

The Kabbalah can more correctly be understood as the Dilaetic of the Consciousness, this may give the reader a better understanding. This the dilaetic of our dreams. This the how the consciousness (divinity) speaks to us. If a master Yogi and a Zen master where to meditate on a symbol, say, the Cross or the Star of David, they would both return with the same information (meditaiton is the way to gather information of the consciousness). This is because they have understood the dialetic of the consciousness.

The person who begins to search within the internal, will be able to see ('vision' and 'wisdom' come from the same root word) throughout the external.

This is a million times more profound then saying: "Look Horus and Jesus have identical lives, they represent the same figure..." "The soul is a reference to solar, the Sun; we are worshipping the sun just like the old 'barbaric' religions..." "Joseph is IO-Ceph, Jupiter or IO-Pitar, they represent the same thing..." "Hey look the Bible teachings about Karma and Reincarnation, except it is called The Law.. it says we will be measured how we measure others.. that John is the reincarnation of Elias.." "Look, a White Horse rider is found in Buddhism, Hunduism and Christanty..." "Look, numbers like 40, 108, 12, 7, 3, and 10 are found all over the place in religion.."

But do not take my word for it. If you really want to understand religion, read The Perfect Matrimony or The Initiatic Path in the Arcana of Tarot and Kabbalah by Samael Aun Weor.

If you really want to know, then you must stop debating. The mind is a subjective tool that can never find the truth. You must, must, must begin daily meditation. Everything else here, the intellectual self-gratification, is a waste of time if you are looking for the truth. All of this talking will not get us anywhere. Everyone is already full of theories, and yet we are all still here, talking more, and it will only lead to more well definied theory, more sects, more theory and more debate.

 

[Quahom1]

Truly, there is one religion.

Different religions exist for different times and cultures. Some cultures stress a certain objective. Others give an outline of concepts. Some make use of faith a primary tool. Others make use of will as a primary tool.

The science of Kabbalah is seen in many more religions that what people know. People are very ignorant to this science that resounds itself in every major religion. Yes, even religions such as Buddhism and Central American Indians.

The Kabbalah can more correctly be understood as the Dilaetic of the Consciousness, this may give the reader a better understanding. This the dilaetic of our dreams. This the how the consciousness (divinity) speaks to us. If a master Yogi and a Zen master where to meditate on a symbol, say, the Cross or the Star of David, they would both return with the same information (meditaiton is the way to gather information of the consciousness). This is because they have understood the dialetic of the consciousness.

The person who begins to search within the internal, will be able to see ('vision' and 'wisdom' come from the same root word) throughout the external.

This is a million times more profound then saying: "Look Horus and Jesus have identical lives, they represent the same figure..." "The soul is a reference to solar, the Sun; we are worshipping the sun just like the old 'barbaric' religions..." "Joseph is IO-Ceph, Jupiter or IO-Pitar, they represent the same thing..." "Hey look the Bible teachings about Karma and Reincarnation, except it is called The Law.. it says we will be measured how we measure others.. that John is the reincarnation of Elias.." "Look, a White Horse rider is found in Buddhism, Hunduism and Christanty..." "Look, numbers like 40, 108, 12, 7, 3, and 10 are found all over the place in religion.."

But do not take my word for it. If you really want to understand religion, read The Perfect Matrimony or The Initiatic Path in the Arcana of Tarot and Kabbalah by Samael Aun Weor.

If you really want to know, then you must stop debating. The mind is a subjective tool that can never find the truth. You must, must, must begin daily meditation. Everything else here, the intellectual self-gratification, is a waste of time if you are looking for the truth. All of this talking will not get us anywhere. Everyone is already full of theories, and yet we are all still here, talking more, and it will only lead to more well definied theory, more sects, more theory and more debate.

(Chuckle) There is only one true religion according to Christian lore. That is the taking care of Orphans and Widows.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? It is Biblical.

v/r

Q

 

[littlemissattitude]

(Chuckle) There is only one true religion according to Christian lore. That is the taking care of Orphans and Widows.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? It is Biblical.

v/r

Q

This is true. See the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament, chapter 6, I believe (I don't have my Bible in front of me at the moment). Anyway, they talk about the widows there, when the Greek Christian widows were upset and complaining that the Jewish Christian widows were getting preferential treatment. So, seven were called to take care of social welfare, so that no one would fall through the cracks.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Is Islam a or the true religion?

oh man, do you live like all the other human beings? meaning do you eat food? have shower? sh*t/p*ss/love? or are you someone/thing living in the computer?

The associations among testosterone, physical development, social dominance, and antisocial behaviour during early adolescence were assessed in a sample of boys followed from 6 to 13 years. Saliva testosterone level was positively correlated with height, and uncorrelated with measures of fatness, including the body mass index. Physical aggression and social dominance were not significantly correlated. Regression analyses revealed that testosterone level and body mass additively predicted social dominance, whereas only body mass predicted physical aggression. Thus, early adolescents with high levels of testosterone were more likely to be socially dominant, especially if they had a large body mass. Those who had a large body mass were more likely to be physically aggressive, independently of their testosterone level. The observed pattern of correlations between testosterone, body mass, dominance, and physical aggression offers an interesting example of the complex hormone-physique-behaviour relations at puberty. They support the hypothesis that testosterone level and social dominance are related, and that the association between testosterone level and physical aggression is probably observed in contexts where physical aggression leads to social dominance.

did i win? or wtf?

and im quite aware of the fact that you are practising medicine without a license, with help from a pharmicist friend.. maybe

I was talking about figuring out what my name 'Susma Rio Sep' indicates, whether by denotation or connotation or anything that is certainly associated with the assembly of sounds and letters.

For example, if someone calls himself 'tufnuts' in another message board (not factual) you and I can work out what he means. For me since I am the one who formulate the name it stands for tough and nuts literally but also figuratively, and my intention is figurative. What about you? Tell me what you think, and I will tell you whether we are concurring.

I will give you a hint to my name, 'Susma Rio Sep', think Gospel characters.


Back to our topic, "a or the true religion", you are an ethnic Muslim, but I imagine you must be an ultra liberal one. Right? What do you think, is Islam a true religion or the true religion.

Pachomius2000