jagunlabi:

PR exercise like how?Who needs the exposure?What people reject in religion is not only what it has become, but also what it represents.This has been pointed out so often on this forum that i am not going to even mention them anymore.

In the ancient times, what we now know as the institutionalized religion was just the exoteric part of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd through superficial ritualistic worship to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace that were ready for the real thing(esoteric teachings) which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times.Was jesus christ's teaching spiritual(esoteric) or religious(exoteric)?
Problem started when the exoteric part was hijacked and institutionalized by political leaders of that time to control and manipulate the populace, and called it "religion".The end result was that the esoteric part(the real thing) was cut off and demonized as sorcery or witchcraft, or demon worshipping,etc., while the exoteric part became the tool for mass population control through fear of the unknown.

To be spiritual means much more than just worshipping, praising,being of blind faith, and fellowshipping all over the place.The differences are so vast that one could write volumes of books just on those differences alone.

Another good difference is this one;

-To be spiritual, one needs a teacher
-To be religious, one needs a preacher

I am very sure you can identify the difference between the two.And Jesus was a teacher, was he not?

No wonder I disappoint you!! You don't know me at all. If you did then you would know that I would need you to cite me historical examples before I even begin to give what you've said above any serious consideration. You would know that I think that teacher preacher stuff is just soundbites. It sounds good and it's a nice rhyme but when you knock on it all you get is a hollow kon kon kon sound. You know what they say about hollowness, it makes the nicest resonating sounds. You can even dance to it.

ps. PR is not just about exposure. When you are already exposed then you can do pr to dress it up.

jagunlabi:

In the ancient times, what we now know as the institutionalized religion was just the exoteric part of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd through superficial ritualistic worship to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace that were ready for the real thing(esoteric teachings) which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times.Was jesus christ's teaching spiritual(esoteric) or religious(exoteric)?
Problem started when the exoteric part was hijacked and institutionalized by political leaders of that time to control and manipulate the populace, and called it "religion".The end result was that the esoteric part(the real thing) was cut off and demonized as sorcery or witchcraft, or demon worshipping,etc., while the exoteric part became the tool for mass population control through fear of the unknown.

To be spiritual means much more than just worshipping, praising,being of blind faith, and fellowshipping all over the place.The differences are so vast that one could write volumes of books just on those differences alone.

Can you please site examples?  We need historical, verifiable examples of instances in which "institutionalized religion was just the exoteric part of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd through superficial ritualistic worship to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace that were ready for the real thing(esoteric teachings) which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times."

Thank you.

Pastor AIO:

It sounds good and it's a nice rhyme but when you knock on it all you get is a hollow kon kon kon sound. You know what they say about hollowness, it makes the nicest resonating sounds. You can even dance to it.

Perhaps i don't know you or maybe i should say, i overrated you.Because if you know a bit about ancient mystery schools from where religions like christianity, judaism and islam emerged from you won't be asking for historical examples because you would already have all the infos.
The "teacher/preacher stuff", as you put it, is not soundbites simply because teachers teach, they disseminate wisdom through informations, while preachers just preach by repeating dogmatic lines over and over again.There is never any hope of extracting any information or wisdom from preachers within a certain lenght of time because they don't have any, and it is never their intention in the first place to have something worthwhile to disseminate.
A preacher tells you what you already know in a repeated fashion(most christians and muslims can testify to that), while a teacher guides one through myriads of new informatiosn to help enrich the mind and the soul.That is the difference between religions and spiritual traditions.So, the differences are definitely concrete enough to be more than soundbites.
Anyway, to each his own.

Pastor AIO:

No wonder I disappoint you!! You don't know me at all. If you did then you would know that I would need you to cite me historical examples before I even begin to give what you've said above any serious consideration. You would know that I think that teacher preacher stuff is just soundbites. It sounds good and it's a nice rhyme but when you knock on it all you get is a hollow kon kon kon sound. You know what they say about hollowness, it makes the nicest resonating sounds. You can even dance to it.

ps. PR is not just about exposure. When you are already exposed then you can do pr to dress it up.

You can always do that by yourself if you are really interested.Use the google.Google "ancient mystery schools" and see what you come up with.I don't serve information on a platter when we are all in front of a computer.As the saying goes,"if you are in doubt, find out".

Krayola:

Can you please site examples?  We need historical, verifiable examples of instances in which "institutionalized religion was just the exoteric part of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd through superficial ritualistic worship to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace that were ready for the real thing(esoteric teachings) which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times."

Thank you.

jagunlabi:

Perhaps i don't know you or maybe i should say, i overrated you.Because if you know a bit about ancient mystery schools from where religions like christianity, judaism and islam emerged from you won't be asking for historical examples because you would already have all the infos.

You are talking crap. This is nonsense. Give us examples and stop making assertions. How the hell is this ^^ supposed to convince anybody. Is that how "teachers" teach? They just tell you stuff and then call u ignorant for questioning it? Believe me or else GRRRRR!!!! hahahaha Oh, the irony.

Is science taught or preached?

Certainly, for the first 15 years, or so, of your science education, you are expected to accept what you are told. You can question it, but you have no authority to dispute it. Thereafter, you are bound by the language and references that have been imposed on you.

Krayola:

You are talking crap. This is nonsense. Give us examples and stop making assertions. How the hell is this ^^ supposed to convince anybody. Is that how "teachers" teach? They just tell you stuff and then call ignorant for questioning it? Believe me or else GRRRRR!!!! hahahaha Oh, the irony.

Loosing your cool already?I am not here to convince anybody, because this is not a place where anybody can convince anybody else.We all just state our views and move on.So stop growling like a lion.Have you ever convinced anybody on here about the mental positions you take on different issues, or are you a new forumite?You don't know what goes on in here concerning individual viewpoints and their owners?Convince ko . . .

anyway, back to the issue, sufism is the esoteric part of islam, while gnosticism(in all it's versions and ramifications) is the esoteric version of christianity.If you're in doubt of this, then start finding out.

sinequanon:

Is science taught or preached?

Certainly, for the first 15 years, or so, of your science education, you are expected to accept what you are told. You can question it, but you have no authority to dispute it. Thereafter, you are bound by the language and references that have been imposed on you.

Of our science education? or of almost all our education, or even life in general? Languages and references and learning are not unique to science. . . they are needed for pretty much all types of communication and culture. I don't think your post above is really saying anything.

I would say that science was once taught back in those days when science was still pure and has not been stained by dogma.These days, you even hear terms that one normally hears in the religious circle like, dogma, heresy, priests, etc being used.
Science is no longer what it used to be.Many scientist that have been pushed or "excommunicated" to the fringe because they dared to question the established dogma can testify to that.

sinequanon:

Is science taught or preached?

Certainly, for the first 15 years, or so, of your science education, you are expected to accept what you are told. You can question it, but you have no authority to dispute it. Thereafter, you are bound by the language and references that have been imposed on you.

jagunlabi:


anyway, back to the issue, sufism is the esoteric part of islam, while gnosticism(in all it's versions and ramifications) is the esoteric version of christianity.If you're in doubt of this, then start finding out.

Suffism grew out of Islam, Kabbalah grew out of Judaism, and Christianity out of Judaism.

Here is an expert in the research into mystery schools and their link to organized religions.Folks like him are the ones who takes this sort of thing on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPuzjxU9gE . You guys can agree or disagree with him.

I disagree, that is just your own opinion.
FYI, judaism grew out of the ancient egyptian mystery schools.And guess which religion is the oldest of the three?

Krayola:

Suffism grew out of Islam, Kabbalah grew out of Judaism, and Christianity out of Judaism.

jagunlabi:

I disagree, that is just your own opinion.
FYI, judaism grew out of the ancient egyptian mystery schools.And guess which religion is the oldest of the three?

hahaha. You do realize that sufism is Islamic mysticism and uses the Qu'ran. Same with Kabbalah. . . Jewish Mysticism and the Torah.

Judaism has influences from different ancient Mesopotamian cultures, and did not "grow out" of any specific one.


And since you are talking of old religions, you may want to know that the earliest known forms of religion were about community. This whole mystical thing, which is about a personal union with the divine, came much later, and developed out of pre-existing practices. SO in some sense the earliest forms of religion were "institutionalized".

I usually give sources and examples right away but I'm not home right now and I don't want to use internet sources cause I have books and notes on all this stuff at home. But I'm pretty darn sure you are talking jagba-jantis, sir!

jagunlabi:

I would say that science was once taught back in those days when science was still pure and has not been stained by dogma.These days, you even hear terms that one normally hears in the religious circle like, dogma, heresy, priests, etc being used.
Science is no longer what it used to be.Many scientist that have been pushed or "excommunicated" to the fringe because they dared to question the established dogma can testify to that.

That sounds typical of most bodies of knowledge. They have diplomatic roots in some communal concern but become increasingly dogmatic as they propagate into the mainstream. I would say that dogma and standardization go hand in hand because nature tends to respect variety.

Krayola:

hahaha. You do realize that sufism is Islamic mysticism and uses the Qu'ran. Same with Kabbalah. . . Jewish Mysticism and the Torah.

My guy, what are we disputing here?You are merely repeating what i have already stated.Mysticism is just another word for esoteric traditions.Mystics are the ones that delve deeply into the esoteric knowledge.Islam is just the outer shell of sufism that was used to control the populace, and so was judaism to kabbalah.

Krayola:

Judaism has influences from different ancient Mesopotamian cultures, and did not "grow out" of any specific one.

Grew out of or influenced, it is just a matter of language or wording.It is one and the same thing.And i never said anything about a specific ancient mystery school because i did use them in plural form, "mystery schools" even if they were egyptian in origin.

Krayola:

And since you are talking of old religions, you may want to know that the earliest known forms of religion were about community. This whole mystical thing, which is about a personal union with the divine, came much later, and developed out of pre-existing practices. SO in some sense the earliest forms of religion were "institutionalized".

Wrong there.Community religions never predated the mystical aspects.At best, they existed side by side.There is not a single ancient civilization(to my knowledge) ever recorded that does not have atleast a shaman, and shamans are the mystics of the very ancient times.

Krayola:


I usually give sources and examples right away but I'm not home right now and I don't want to use internet sources cause I have books and notes on all this stuff at home. But I'm pretty darn sure you are talking jagba-jantis, sir!

No, i am not.When you get home then let me have them, then i will provide mine.

jagunlabi:

My guy, what are we disputing here?You are merely repeating what i have already stated.Mysticism is just another word for esoteric traditions.Mystics are the ones that delve deeply into the esoteric knowledge.Islam is just the outer shell of sufism that was used to control the populace, and so was judaism to kabbalah.

What we are disputing is your claim that institutionalized religions are a part, and means to and end, of Mysticism, which you claim is the "real thing". This is what you said . . . 

institutionalized religion was [size=14pt]just[/size] the exoteric [size=14pt]part[/size] of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd[b] through superficial ritualistic worship [size=14pt]to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace[/size] that were ready for the [size=14pt]real[/size] thing[/b](esoteric teachings)[/b] which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times."

SO it seems now, to me, that you are pretty much saying the "superficial/"fake" thing" is the foundation, and author of the Holy Texts, on which the "real thing" is based. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, and if possible explain what the quote above was intended to communicate to your readers.

I lost some of the content of my earlier post, so i posted it incomplete.I have just edited it again.This thing can be frustrating sometimes.That is why i hate posting in long back and forths.

Krayola:

What we are disputing is your claim that institutionalized religions are a part, and means to and end, of Mysticism, which you claim is the "real thing". This is what you said . . . 

Yes and i stand by that, and you have posted nothing to disprove that.Your arguements have not disproved that but gone off tangent.

Krayola:

SO it seems now, to me, that you are pretty much saying the "superficial/"fake" thing" is the foundation, and author of the Holy Texts, on which the "real thing" is based. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, and if possible explain what the quote above was intended to communicate to your readers.

While the scriptural texts do contain certain esoteric teachings, they have been mixed with so much irrelevant and nonsensical texts that one really have to look to really know where they are.Remove the esoteric texts and what is left in the bible for example?Begat, begat, begat ,begat.
That is another evidence that esoteric traditions are always the origin of these organized mainstream religions.Was the bible not doctored hundred and hundreds of times? Why the doctorings?Take a guess.Moreover, was the book of revelation not based on the egyptian "book of the dead" which was a literature of the egyptian mystery schools?

jagunlabi:

While the scriptural texts do contain certain esoteric teachings, they have been mixed with so much irrelevant and nonsensical texts that one really have to look to really know where they are. Remove the esoteric texts and what is left in the bible for example?Begat, begat, begat ,begat.

What about Islam? What are the esoteric teachings in the Qu'ran? Or the New Testament? What are the origins of the New Testament scriptures that Christian Mysticism is based on. . . How ancient are those ones?

Krayola:

What about Islam? What are the esoteric teachings in the Qu'ran?

I cannot answer this question because i have never read the quran, and i have no intention of ever doing so.But there was this video clip that beautifully illustrated some of the esoteric sufi teachings in the quran.But i can't seem to find it right now as it is an old clip, even though i still have it on my hard drive.

Krayola:

Or the New Testament? What are the origins of the New Testament scriptures that Christian Mysticism is based on. . . How ancient are those ones?

The new testament is full of them.Take the gospel of John, for example, it is packed with esoteric teachings that have been giving meaningless, literal, exoteric meanings by the church of rome at that time.
I will tell you once again that the major reasons for all those endless doctorings of the bible was to remove or modify as many esoteric texts as possible.But despite alll the editings and the re-editings, many are still there intact.The garden of eden story itself is esoteric in nature with a deep deep spiritual meaning that has been lost in interpretations and translations.

Tales by moonlight is packed with esoteric meaning

Krayola:

Tales by moonlight is packed with esoteric meaning

Even Punch and Vanguard are full of esoteric meaning. Which now leads us to the question . . . . Is meaning intrinsic in objects or is it conferred upon objects by the perceiver?

Tales by moonlight, novels, songs, movies, frescoes, even city designs and building architectures all have incorporated in them esoteric meanings.But to understand them and not misinterprete is what makes the difference.
Exoteric religions like christianity and islam, because of their literal and very superficial interpretations of their holy scriptures, miss the plot right from the start.Whether that was done intentionally or by honest error is another topic entirely.

sinequanon:

Independent of what, thehomer?
I reckon what you are unable to say is, "independent of scientific method."
Your point reduces to "science validates science." It is judge and jury. So what?
Through testing against religious principle, just as science tests against scientific principle. In both cases, the principles are interpreted with respect to the subject under test and some form of peer debate ensues.

I meant independent of whoever is carrying out the experiment.

I think an example of use of this similar method in religion would more clearly illustrate your point.

sinequanon:

I have said the case of ordination of women is a debate over interpretation of the bible. You say it is about ignoring parts of the bible (implicitly trying to impose your own interpretation of the bible). I am happy to disagree with you.

This is not my interpretation the laws are clearly stated. Is there another way of interpreting "homosexuals should be murdered" to become "homosexuals should not be killed instead they should be ordained"?

You still seem to be missing the difference. In religion no one is allowed to rewrite the religious texts. You claim reinterpretation. Is there another way of reinterpreting executing someone for sex outside of marriage? Some choose to apply this others do not. And I'm saying if your religion states in its text that such a person should be executed and this person is not, then what is the religious adherent applying? Is there a rewritten text giving them permission?

sinequanon:

Yes.

Would this universe have any sort of consistency?

sinequanon:

This goes back to my subtle point about consistency. These constants are not 'correct', they are consistent with the body of science. Anything that starts off inconsistent with them has to be reinterpreted until it is consistent -- alternatively, it may remain an unknown for a long period of time. In practice, the physical constant is not going to be the thing that will be changed to reestablish consistency. There may be many other less costly ways of establishing consistency without tinkering with core facts.

In addition to my last point, constants can also be a direct artefact of human intuition, reflecting some habit of perception. The fact, that we haven't conceived a way of escaping the constant, may not be a fact about 'the universe' but about how we habitually interact with it.

I, personally, do not believe in any such a category because I don't see scientific validation as anything particularly special. I do however say that scientists have labelled as supernatural phenomena outside their domain.

If the constant was wrong it would not be consistent with science. The physical constant not changing is due to the way it was arrived at.

I can see your attempt to delve into philosophy with our means of perception and all that which could easily end up with "Nothing exists" which frankly does not help matters.

Do you mean to tell me that you give equal credence to the biochemical basis of disease with respect to say sickle cell anaemia as to the belief that people with this ailment are in fact witches or mermaids sent to cause misery to their families?
Or to the germ theory of disease with respect to small pox as to the belief that this was a god that had to be worshipped until the death of this god?

sinequanon:

Excellent! 'Functioning', not 'accuracy'! That is what I call neutral terminology and was going to suggest 'utility', myself. Note that it also draws into question the notion of purpose.

So, you see, I am not asking you to play with words. I will accept neutral language. If something is fit for purpose (functions), how accurate scientific theory says it is is irrelevant. Even if current understanding in fluid dynamics predicts, to fifty decimal places, that a bee cannot fly because of it's geometry (flexible wing aerodynamics is still in its infancy), the bee can still fly. The term 'accuracy' carries an implicit bias towards science.

You've brought up another wing property of an animal. A little research shows that your statement is a bit off. The bees flight is explained but not by fixed wing equations but by:
"the unconventional combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency"
Which is a scientific reason that works and was reproducible. But what is the religious reason that it flies? God did it.

sinequanon:

Independent of what? Verification against what?

Science and science, hmm?  

Like I said independent of whoever is carrying out the experiment.

But with religion, what you get depends on the "interpretation" of who you ask.

sinequanon:

The model of an atom is there to predict its behaviour. The predictions of 'the atom as a small bead' failed. The model, which is an interpretation and configuration of fundamental (scientific) principles, then got updated.

Similarly, if a prediction from the bible fails, the statement in the bible gets reinterpreted.

Here you are again with your reinterpretation. Why is this reinterpretation not written into the bible so that future readers will see this and know that there is no need for ambiguity since the reinterpretation is clearer?
Updating information is very different from interpreting it in another way.

sinequanon:

Updates are not available in the fundamental principles of science. The law of conservation of energy has not changed. If it doesn't work, you can devise a new form of energy to make it work and say you are searching for a new type of 'potential' energy. As I said, consistency is all that is required, not truth, and core tenets are rarely the pieces to be updated.

Notwithstanding, I am happy to disagree with you that the changes in the bible were all accidental. If you cannot agree to disagree, maybe you will just have to sit there and stress.  

Updates are not yet available in the fundamental principles of science. FTFY  

The reason why it has not changed is because it is true as far as we know. Well consistency is in fact required in a logical universe. So are you implying that by the inconsistency seen in religion that it is illogical?
Please show me the changes in the bible or other religious text that was due to updates in the current knowledge.

Also during this discussion you seem to be all about trying to poke holes. This does not make your position any stronger. You could also try to demonstrate why you disagree with the topic.

sinequanon:

That sounds typical of most bodies of knowledge. They have diplomatic roots in some communal concern but become increasingly dogmatic as they propagate into the mainstream. I would say that dogma and standardization go hand in hand because nature tends to respect variety.

Science is far from being dogmatic. So far religion, superstition and pseudoscience and maybe others have this claim to fame.
The reason why one is expected to carry out experiments for themselves in school is to show that it is not dogmatic.

Science is tested truth=falsible, but religion is untested truth

thehomer:
FTFY

I don't do gutter language. So it's the same as I said to Krayola. We can resume if and when you retract your gutter language.

FTFY means "Fixed that for you"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FTFY

I'm using the third definition there.

What's wrong with this?

sinequanon:

I don't do gutter language. So it's the same as I said to Krayola. We can resume if and when you retract your gutter language.

Please, if you do not understand a term someone uses, just ask and it will be explained to you. When you just label things as "gutter" or as "insults" and start to demand all sorts of things from someone whose words you do not understand, it causes problems, in my opinion. You shouldn't keep taking offence to things that were never intended as insults. People on the internet are from different backgrounds and cultures, so u should please take that into consideration when discussing with people. If something is not an insult, why should any principled person retract it? And when a misunderstood statement is explained, why should a reasonable person insist on taking offense to it? Just my opinion though.

like a mo-fo

A phrase commonly used to add a level of extremity to a state of being, emotion, or action.
"Damn,  my mom's gonna be madder than a mo-fo!!"

"Make me a sandwich, I got da munchies like a mo-fo!"  

FTFY

T,FTFY
There, Fixed That For You

A common variant of FTFY

thehomer:

FTFY means "Fixed that for you"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FTFY

I'm using the third definition there.

What's wrong with this?

Kindly write it out in full in your original post, then there will be no gutter language/urban connotations.  

Science is d opposite of Religion.

sinequanon:

Kindly write it out in full in your original post, then there will be no gutter language/urban connotations.  

You are asking for too much. You could simply read it where I put it in that post. Any one who misunderstands can follow the thread of the discussion and see for themselves what it means.

Besides the effect would be ruined if I wrote it in full.

Though if you wish to reply to that statement, you could write it in full but note that you modified my post to do that as courtesy would require.

You could have simply researched it before you took offense and I still do not know what you thought it meant. Despite the fact that you've been given the meaning you persist in calling it "gutter language".