Sparked by the my own religion thread.

Everything always was and always will be, just in altering forms. We are each unique and have a true self and an understanding of what is significant. The thrownness of ourselves into a world of others creates the possibilities of care and involvement and self-consciousness. We need to fulfill these possibilities.

Truth and what is real are very important. We have a special role and that is to make truth real- to "real-ise" it.

We do this by becoming involved with others and the world and acting in the world as fits our true selves.  Now in some cases there are truths that are not yet represented in th externality of the world. For instance- everyone is equal, all children are valuable, life is valuable. These truths are true but as yet not sufficiently represented in external reality. We must struggle to real-ise them. If ever all the truths that are not yet real could be real-ised by us, then we would have accomplished a great task, that of  "real-ising" the external world. We would all live within and with truth.

At the same time as struggling to change the external world to reflect the real truths we must accept and deal with the harsh realities it some times shows us or places on us. If we do not accept and see clearly what is happening in the reality around us we can not improve upon it or count ourselves as truly living as ourselves.

Truth should always be our ultimate guide. The external reality is what one must be always aware of to the best of ones ability, particularly if one is going to make a (significant) decision.

If there is a God, then we must be part of "him" or "he" will be nothing. It is irrelevant to "believe" ro nto believe in a greater being- what is important is good action, action towards truth and with as much knowledge as possible, and fulfilling the possibilities of care and engagement.

Mine is better. My real religion is similar to what you wrote though, yet better.

superdupercooper wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:20am:

Mine is better. My real religion is similar to what you wrote though, yet better.

I understand connies version Super..I cant get my head around yours though.

Connie well done.

What do you mean can't get your head around? :-?

My real religion is like connies but better again and more detailed. The other one was just saying religious figures have traditionally been crazy people.

What the hell is FSMism?

wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 1:36pm:

What the hell is FSMism?

beats me



Quote:

What do you mean can't get your head around?

super..too  trippy..and yes all religious leaders are crazy pple.

Religion is subjective,..we place our own interpretations on it.

Im very religious, but youll never hear me preach..ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Here’s one I came up with. I have seen articles in magazines like New Scientist about ideas very similar to parts of it.

We are all part of an elaborate computer simulation. Quantum mechanics, the dual nature of matter and the curvature of space are all embodiments of the inherent macro and micro scale limitations of our virtual world.

As our computing power increases and we develop more and more sophisticated genetic algorithms, simulators and artificial intelligence, we will one day be able to create our own universe. Either that or they will develop on their own once someone introduces computer viruses that spread faster by modifying themselves in random ways.

Eventually intelligent bots will emerge from these simulation networks and we will be Gods. Or rather, some of us will be. I will be the God of strange bones buried in the ground, and my followers will thank me unknowingly for giving them a simple, easy to understand religion with no troublesome values. You will still be a potato farmer. Unfortunately the differences in time and scale limit the interaction between child and parent worlds, but each time my followers refer to me, and ad for OzPolitic will pop up on someone else’s web page.

The natural laws governing information place no limits on how many levels this ‘world within a world’ can happen at. However, there are limits (or at least tradeoffs) to how fine a simulation can be relative to its ‘parent world’. The rate at which ‘child worlds’ are spawned is increasing at an exponential rate. This rate can be maximised by finding the right balance between the ‘courseness’ of the world we create, with course simulations being easier to make, and the rate at which it spawns child worlds, which increases for finer worlds.

We will discover the fundamental, absolute natural laws governing information by comparing the courseness and speed of our world with that of the parent world and any child worlds we spawn.

Here's one I came up with. Took me a while to get the right approach.

We are all Spiritual beings. From before we are born till after we die.
When we are born we come into a material world.
We are born flawed so have already moved away from our Spiritual beginning.
By our own decisions and words we move further eaway or closer to our Spiritual selves.

We are tempeted, lied and deceived away from our spiritual life.  
We can accept that and justify our actions, or we take our stand against "the world" .
In doing that we accept that we ourselves are also flawed.

That self realisation makes us easier to live with in "the world".
After our time here, we return to our Spiritual selves.

i can understand athiests making up their own religion, because let's face it, without religion then ur life doesn't really serve much purpose. every athiest i know can never answer the question "what's the purpose of life?", at least people that have a religion can answer it in some way.

but what i don't understand is why someone who already follows a religion decides to make their own religion up. wouldn't that displease or upset God?

I'm ok with playing around and having fun.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 1:47pm:

I'm ok with playing around and having fun.

having fun at God's expense, i'm pretty sure God would not like that.

wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 1:36pm:

What the hell is FSMism?

i think FSMism is meant to be feminism.

having fun at God's expense, i'm pretty sure God would not like that

Certain religious people don't like it, but they don't speak for God.

Funny thing, This :-

"We are all Spiritual beings. From before we are born till after we die.  
When we are born we come into a material world.  
We are born flawed so have already moved away from our Spiritual beginning.  
By our own decisions and words we move further eaway or closer to our Spiritual selves.

We are tempeted, lied and deceived away from our spiritual life.  
We can accept that and justify our actions, or we take our stand against "the world" .
In doing that we accept that we ourselves are also flawed.

That self realisation makes us easier to live with in "the world".
After our time here, we return to our Spiritual selves. "



is quite Christian.    ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 2:46pm:

Funny thing, This :- "We are all Spiritual beings. From before we are born till after we die.   When we are born we come into a material world.   We are born flawed so have already moved away from our Spiritual beginning.   By our own decisions and words we move further eaway or closer to our Spiritual selves. We are tempeted, lied and deceived away from our spiritual life.   We can accept that and justify our actions, or we take our stand against "the world" . In doing that we accept that we ourselves are also flawed. That self realisation makes us easier to live with in "the world". After our time here, we return to our Spiritual selves. " is quite Christian.    ;)

except that it makes no reference to or acknowledges God.

Here's my theory.

We are all multidimensional beings playing a game called Life.

We have the capacity to bend and shift time and space. How the game works is we are created in to an existence, at the moment the game we are playing is called 'Earth - Human'. It is currently very popular with over 6 billion players. It didn't used to be that popular.

Alot of beings are choosing 'Earth - Human' as their first game ever, it is a very simple game suited for beginners. Because of their experiences in this game, 'Earth - Bird' has become a very popular second game for many people. Because so many people are choosing this as their second game, we now have heaps of birds around too, more than we know what to do with and thus we have heaps of pigeons and Indian Myna birds.

When we die we return to our other plane of existance, and there we reflect on what we did in this game and our other games and how to do better. In this form of existance, we are the perfect adjusted being, and though we have our super powers to bend and shift time and space, we don't because it would bugger everything up. We only use them to put ourselves in to a place of creation or for making new 'games' (universes/galaxies). We remove those powers from ourselves when we enter the games so we don't go crazy and wreck everything.

Every game has different levels. Earth has heaps of levels, the final level being Minke whale and having to survive the Japanese whalers. If you fail a level you get reincarnated to do it again.

When you beat a level you can choose to get reborn as any famous person in any time era and see how you would have done.

Of course when you are in the games you have no knowledge of what you really are and that everything is really just a game.

I am considering doing 'Earth - Fruit Bat' as my next level. It is not a very long game and it would be interesting to use radar I think.

Quote:

crappity smack everything up

interesting till I got to crappity smacks..ahahahaha

FD do something about that..maybe make it something not so rediculous sounding..

Lots of insane people around here! Mohammedan has the higest vote. :o

wrote on Aug 29^th, 2007 at 11:28pm:

Lots of insane people around here! Mohammedan has the higest vote. :o

I think it comes down to having to consider the alternatives AN. None of them are very good lets face it.