Hey wait a minute , I want to be the one doing the kicking. Aren`t I just the same as god. ? Free will .?

Are those serious questions or provocations?

Pretty cool alistair. It probably is something simple like that.

What a marvel to live and experience. How it resonates with being a kid also and the simple joy of kicking a rock , and walking freely. ~!~

How that same joy is the same in an adult. This same joy may be dreamt on our deathbed in old age .

What does the removal of all belief mean.? Not believing in things that can`t be proven real. ? What does one end up with if belief is removed. ?

Those are all good questions which I encourage you to explore!

walking down the road and kicking stones is where god is.

Exactly, except it is more like you’re the stone and God is kicking you.

What does the removal of all belief mean.? Not believing in things that can`t be proven real. ? What does one end up with if belief is removed. ?

Maybe just walking down the road and kicking stones. Not religion , or most brands of spirituality.

As is said , if you believe the premise , the rest is easy.

No, I am NOT talking about belief. I want to be absolutely clear about that. I am talking about the removal of all belief. There is no premise. And no, it is most assuredly NOT easy.

How about those Scotsman and those damn kilts.? British just hate them.

To people that have had the misfortune to fight them , the Scots that is, they are known as the Ladies from Hell.

regarding a direct knowledge or gnosis, there are those who deny, those who search and those who get hit on the head with it. all positions are valid and true for those experiencing.

I would call listening to Jimi Hendrix a direct experience. I am not so sure about the other thing as described by you as being one.

To each their own though , Viva La , America. ~!~

but right now for some it`s a real insult………….

But i don’t get what’s insulting about it?

Is getting closer to god an illusory concept

Well, I can help you out on this one: it’s not! In fact, the only thing illusory about it is calling it a “concept” because it is instead a direct experience.

I suppose someone could open a , Closer to god clothing- boutique store , and put hair shirts into product placement venues in movies.

Mel Gibson endorsed hair shirts for $59.99 on Hollywood Blvd.
Catholics were fond of these special shirts, and there is a legend that John the Baptist wore one.

Some difficult things in the comments… individuality is a difficult concept. Like the TV ad for a vehicle I say the other day that suggested you could somehow escape the road by driving down it… (cue Dire Straits ‘Telegraph Road’?)

I heard self-flagellation was indeed once all the rage… not really sure why. Perhaps it was one up on fasting. Or some kind of just deserts for being a miserable sinner… interesting to find out.

They thought it brought them closer to god.

Did it?

i think that we all know how it effects others in that context

I’m not sure I understand!

you can buy software to reverse audio files

Or you could download it yourself and try it out for free. Audacity should be able to do it: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

i know what i`m thinking when i begin to type and i hope that i`m at least clear to myself regarding my thoughts

What I have been finding lately is that when I am “thinking clearly” in a way that is expressive, that may not necessarily mean that I myself understand what it is that I want. Or even if I did know what I want, that it’s fulfillment would be the right and correct course of action to take. Not exactly sure where I am taking this thought at the moment, either, but there feels to be some thread that’s important here which I believe there may be some valuable insight and inspiration to be gleaned from those who wear the Burqa or commit other acts of intentional self-limitation. To them there is clearly a much higher and better purpose than simple self-expression. What is it?

I think I changed my mind on the Burqa ban. Who cares what they wear. The most important thing is to be able to ridicule them or praise them or whatever them, in a way that suits yourself as an individual.

I draw the line then when a persons freedom of speech is cut short. People should be able to say any stupid damn thing or glorious thing. Ha.

Materialism and atheism are important acts of independence.

Independence from what? I personally would seek independence from them!

No separation of Church and State.

Homosexuality to a sin.

A Muslim man may marry a Christian woman because the children are his. No Muslim woman may marry a Christian man unless he converts.

This is a clear case of a rock meeting a hard place. It could get ugly.

I believe Amsterdam is one of the most spiritually advanced countries on earth. It’s time we stop thinking of ourselves as “slaves of God” or “poor, miserable sinners.” Materialism and atheism are important acts of independence.

In any event, it’s an elementary belief of Gnostics that moral laws are relative; merely meant to stabilize personalities. Europe’s full of mentally healthy, well educated people. They must not be thrown off track.

Isn`t the -prophet of doom - site you posted little more than nasty propaganda with a dissembler slant as it seems to be pro-Jewish and anti-Arab , and uses all sorts of nasty diatribe issues to paint Muslims in the worse light possible , and Jews in a holey and holier than thou light , and as if they are the true religion.?

When people take sides for and against religion aren`t they exposing bigotry when they chose a side .
As someone who does not particularly like the vantage of Jews , Muslims, Christians and Hindu`s or other religious dissemblers , I find it comical that people pick sides on these mostly pointless belief systems.
Religion should perhaps be relegated where it belongs , in the belief system zone , and not meant to be taken seriously , by serious people.
Most religion is a kind of practical joke played on the gullibility of humans.
The Lord your god.? Ha Ha.

One good rule for humans is that , if there fist contacts another , then their freedom is confiscated. That’s simple enough.

so why should we tear our own culture apart?

In what way is our culture being torn apart? I don’t see that at all.

other folks seem to be quite happy to reassemble thier culture intact elsewhere and demand the right to do so.

Uh, isn’t this what *everyone* does? I mean look at the history of the West, first of all. It’s nothing *but* that exact thing. And American culture is certainly America’s primary export.

amish are allowed thier idiosycracies by the greater society that surrounds them. they should have a meeting of the elders and grow up regarding the photo thing…….

No, I totally agree about not letting people photograph you. I might even argue that it can and does “steal your soul” in some sense. That’s what I was referring to here in another way:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/11/15/the-metaphysics-of-media/

anglo-saxons are under siege genetically.

And let’s say that this is true for a moment. What does it matter at all if it is? Why should we cling to a bunch of chemicals and say that they are “us”?

Ted:

f you have a democratic society based on equality and individual expression of things like religion, people that don’t share those values are a threat eventually, but initially, they enjoy the freedom and equality.

I think they probably become a threat when they stop assimilating into the dominant culture and retain too closely their individual ways, because it forces corporations to start running concurrent advertising and control schemes, when all they want is to have one master set of mechanisms that reaches everybody.

everything I had been reading that is more left wing, that the enlightenment is the only game in town.

Absolutely: it’s sacrosanct to suggest that maybe Enlightenment values aren’t all there is to life. Oddly enough, I see this assumption questioned only in strange quarters: Fundamentalist Christians, some conspiracy theorists, some primitivists, some people in Ken Wilber’s Spiral Dynamics, etc

I think it hooks into conspiracy theory research right here:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/07/26/the-illuminati-enlightenment/

Muslims just acknowledge they have authority over them. Liberal demcrats don’t.

Extremely good point, I think.

Tarikur:

It kills the Westerners to think that Muslim women actually choose to wear it. Only thing they want to believe is that women are forced to wear it by men.

Yes! You are absolutely right. Westerners don’t have as strong a grasp over this idea that you could willingly choose to limit yourself in certain ways. As a result, we are limited in all kinds of ways that we don’t understand consciously and rebel against because we aren’t able to examine the underlying contradictions.

Why is it when nuns wear veil, people consider them holy and pious but when Muslim women wear veil, people consider them ’submissive and oppressed’?

Very good question!

Banning a woman to wear veil is same as forcing a women to wear veil, both are oppressive to women and violates women’s right.

Yes! I think you are absolutely right.

This just show Europeans don’t care about Freedom, Democracy, Diversity, Torlance, Women’s Right, Religious’ Right, Minority’ Right, Human Rights. Next, time they preach those things, just laugh at them as jokes

Look at the countries like Turkey or Tunisia that government banned it and discourage it. But the Muslim women continue to wear it with big numbers. In the BBC news, they said 65% of the all women in Turkey wear veil.

Very, very small percentage of women are forced to wear it by men but nearly all women wear it because they choose to wear it.

We all know why they can’t ban the full Muslim veil or hijab because Nuns wear the same veil for the same reason.

Why is it when nuns wear veil, people consider them holy and pious but when Muslim women wear veil, people consider them ’submissive and oppressed’?

Basically though, in Liberal democracies, just like in the Muslim world only a few people hold the power. People living in Liberal democracies just theink they have a say in what goes on. Like all these people against the Iraq war.

Muslims just acknowledge they have authority over them. Liberal demcrats don’t. We are all equal, equally competant to lead, equally competant to decide whats right. But then we don’t have the tools in our droor to solve problems.

What I am seeing here is that various enlightenment ideals seem to break down. If you have a democratic society based on equality and individual expression of things like religion, people that don’t share those values are a threat eventually, but initially, they enjoy the freedom and equality. There is a threat of Muslims outbreeding the Europeans, it could happen with 50 years. First world people don’t have kids.

The thing is though the enlightenment weakened these types of behaviors the Muslims are now displaying, when these behaviors were associated with Europeans and Christianity. The Church was at one time much more powerful, just like Muslem clerics. The church regulated peoples sexual behavior, and there was more of a top down authoritarian group mindset.

Oddly enough, Really there is hardly anything out there in print right now that criticizes the enlightenment, not in any stuff I had been reading. I decided to study neo-conservatism and so Read “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom. It really challenged my thinking in a lot of ways. Turns out The Straussians are actually pretty smart and have really deep insights about the world.

All the stuff I had read about them had been filtered by liberals that probably hadn’t read strauss either. Now I am trying to read Strauss, which is hard.

Its not that Bloom really was pushing any one ideology, he was just basically explaining how civilization works from Its inception in Athens and Jerusalem, what great thinkers have thought, what the choices are.

I feel like I haven’t had any of these philosophical choices because I am so ignorant. But there has been this bias oin everything I had been reading that is more left wing, that the enlightenment is the only game in town.

Actually though the Neo-cons aren’t against Liberal Democracy either, they just IMO, have a less naive view of the world. This might sound like blasphemy to a lot of people.

If the west was truly frightened as your saying , they would simply banish this group back to the middle east , as was done when the Jew and Arabs were kicked out of Spain at one time .

Aren`t you kind of buying into the muslims as terrorists concept here.?
It`s equally arguable that Christians are terrorists at base with their track record also.

These belief systems have proven to be nasty things , as they get tangled in politics and money.

The Dutch are really a pretty wild group . They themselves or at least some of them claim to be the freest people on earth. Having met them traveling I have to say they are a wild and expansive group.

All people are basically the same though , mostly just brainwashed differently with political and religious lies.

It’s like those conceptual ideas are the gods and the humans are the slaves. Much in the same way that a predator captures and keeps it’s prey. (Going back to your Active Side of Infinity quote.)

Gary

http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com

To put it in perspective, this is part of a political campain, take it with a grain of salt. It’s a proposal done by a minister who feeds on the growing fear for islam here in Holland.

Well, yeah, I mean… of course its a political campaign and it feeds on fear. That goes without saying, doesn’t it? I think you may be taking it with far too many grains of salt. This is hardly an isolated incident so much as it is a broad-sweeping trend across supposedly “liberal” Europe. We can’t just throw up our hands and say, “Oh it’s just politics!” when there are obviously deep roots growing here.

You could probably walk around Amsterdam in a Thong carrying a big Dildo and that would be fine, but a burka is disruptive.

Absolutely, shunning individuality is the only TRUE terrorism. And if you look at what a suicide bomber is too: a suicide bomber isn’t someone with no concern for the lives of others, he is someone who has no concern for his own life, because he serves a higher purpose. There can be no such higher purpose - especially not an invisible one - in a society built on Enlightenment ideals.

Interesting about the Amish vs. Homeland Security! Not surprising though. You have any links on that?

The whole thing taken together paints a very strong picture of how to “unravel” the power of Empire. Same way as ever:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10:21

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

I think Islam is a threat to the working out of a lot of enlightenment ideas that have really taken hold in the west. The ideas that turn us into a bunch of isolated consumers each with his seprate “lifestyle choice”

Amish people are coming up against problems with Homeland security because they don’t like being photographed. Similar dynamic.

Not a big consumer market there, either, with the Amish.