In this thread, we rank the different religions. In your opinion, which religion is closest to the truth?
Which religion is the most correct?
In this thread, we rank the different religions. In your opinion, which religion is closest to the truth?
Happy Science of course. Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Which imagination models would give more of useful objective results.
Science and religions are different.Originally Posted by IndomitableKingOfGnomes
Science is based on objectivity. It's about what exists independently from a human.
For religions is common partly the opposite principle of magics - subjective faith, where to get something is important to believe is this.
A variant of both principles can be joined by supposing the existence of several time dimensions. And that a human mind has the abbility to change the shifting between them by own wish. By believing the shifting happens closer to a variant of the reality with the wished or believed concrete events, what arises the probability of those events to happen.
In quantum physics theories of additional dimensions are among taken seriously.
> Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Among communists should more of reasonable people than among hithleristic and satanistic liberals, to point on inappropriate mixing of opposite terms.
Communistic parties mainly supported rationality and opposed to religions. As religions by supporting the irrationality often were used to help fooling the majority people to worsen their life in the exploitation by higher classes. USSR had among best mass educations in the world because of positive approach to rationality, besides giving max possibilities for people to use their abbilities.
Religions themselves are important part of human minds work and dealing with the unconsciousness, so those can be useful when are used appropriately. To use some mind possibilities an imagination may help, where its secondary what exoterical models/symbols are used for this.
Among T types, unlike your F, people should better understand the term "science" in its modern usage.
You even using emotional term "happy" with the term "science".As among arguments for your F type.
@IndomitableKingOfGnomes BTFO by FACTS and LOGIC.
I think if they're making religious claims, they're all equally false.
Of the so-called Abrahamic (I'm not convinced that adherents of each would necessarily agree with the designation of all three with that label) religions though, if I ranked their religious and supernatural claims by levels of plausibility, it's be Judaism > Christianity > Islam
There are religions like Zoroastrianism and Taoism that are basically equivalent to Star Wars religions. They make claims about nature that are either patently false or which are value judgement claims. They are possibly more plausible to me than Judaism because I've seen the historical evidence that shows core Jewish beliefs to be man-made fictions, and I'm not so knowledgeable about them.
Google: Happy ScienceWhich imagination models would give more of useful objective results.
Science and religions are different.
Science is based on objectivity. It's about what exists independently from a human.
For religions is common partly the opposite principle of magics - subjective faith, where to get something is important to believe is this.
A variant of both principles can be joined by supposing the existence of several time dimensions. And that a human mind has the abbility to change the shifting between them by own wish. By believing the shifting happens closer to a variant of the reality with the wished or believed concrete events, what arises the probability of those events to happen.
In quantum physics theories of additional dimensions are among taken seriously.
> Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Among communists should more of reasonable people than among hithleristic and satanistic liberals, to point on inappropriate mixing of opposite terms.
Communistic parties mainly supported rationality and opposed to religions. As religions by supporting the irrationality often were used to help fooling the majority people to worsen their life in the exploitation by higher classes. USSR had among best mass educations in the world because of positive approach to rationality, besides giving max possibilities for people to use their abbilities.
Religions themselves are important part of human minds work and dealing with the unconsciousness, so those can be useful when are used appropriately. To use some mind possibilities an imagination may help, where its secondary what exoterical models/symbols are used for this.
Among T types, unlike your F, people should better understand the term "science" in its modern usage.
You even using emotional term "happy" with the term "science".
Your inability to use such basic research functions as Google before writing a nonsensical essay cements you as an F type I'm afraid, at least according to your own "logic" of what constitutes an F type
Tell that to the mountains of dead within and without the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and so on, that were all brutally butchered and subject to genocide, which I'm sure you conveniently justify somehow, like you do with Russia's current acts of genocide. Communists running the USSR were far more talented at killing Russians than Hit ler ever could have dreamed at being lol. Feels so good to live in a country where typing the word "war" or shit talking my leadership won't get me thrown in prison for several yearsGo shout "Putin sucks and the war in Ukraine was a mistake" out of your window. Start a timer and let me know how fast the police come for you before you get thrown in prison
Not as blown away as your asshole after taking in bus loads of Russian cocks
What puts Islam behind Christianity in terms of plausibility of its claims? Why put Zoroastrianism in the same category as Taoism instead of with the Abrahamic faiths?
For a start, Christianity and Islam are built up on top of Judaism, so can only be less plausible.
Further, Judaism historically didn't consider Heaven and Hell to be an essential part of its doctrine.
But I also don't think that Jesus and Muhammad existed, so Islam having those two as prophets is only going to decrease its level of plausibility from my perspective.
Zoroastrianism and Taoism both believe in a "good" force and a "bad" force, and possibly formed independently of each other. Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism, which I think only makes it more plausible, if I was to do a religious ranking.
In science, it doesn't matter when a discovery was made, but with religious claims, if you were trying to establish which is timeless and perhaps existed before humanity, then earlier religions that were apparently not influenced by anything else would be more credibly be timeless and outside human influence, if you had no way of establishing if claims are actually true or false.
this one
dont @ me
Idc which one is the most correct. I want to join the one that’s the most fun
It only matters which is most true to you.
What kind of question is this other than to create controversy?
@Grendel
If you are going to worship something at least make sure it's not genuinely ugly and unfuckable
True, but people like to argue and defend their ego or seek truth.
Some people would argue that Abrahamic religions are one, just different branches of each other.
Problem with religion is that it starts off by having a purpose to confine and restrict people in order to function on a basic society, a tool to transition from small tribes to larger communities with principles and it's own customs.
There are not many thorough ways of proving or disproving religion.
So how can we say for sure which religion is right.
If there is one god, it would be infinite gain for believers and infinite or near infinite loss for disbelievers according to Christians.
It's also tricky, and there is so much hate between people of different religions.
It makes sense why atheists dislike religion, it's really tricky to navigate because we tend to only see what we want to see.
Exactly why I left Christianity. As much as it pains my ex-evangelical soul to admit, the Catholics were getting the right idea with Mary...but the fact that she's a perpetual virgin is a major downer. Jesus OTOH, NO WAY.@Grendel
If you are going to worship something at least make sure it's not genuinely ugly and unfuckable
A transcendent, humanly incomprehensible One...OK, fine. But a fucking DUDE? Worshiping a fucking GUY is the gayest thing imaginable! Why don't any of the religions offer hot chicks to worship?
@Grendel please find an egirl to simp for like a normal man instead of whatever that is
Simping is a sacred duty!
This is just fucking hilarious, I don't even know if this is serious or not.
You should maybe look into making your own religion...I don't see much religions worshiping women.
Muslims might commonly believe the so-called Abrahamic religions are one, I'm not convinced practicing Jews and Christians commonly do.
Christians vary in their beliefs just as Muslims do.
Religious claims are beyond the realm of the observable realm, so none of their claims can have evidence for them. However, many if not all religions can be shown to be false in some way in other claims they make.
I'll have to agree. While I do label myself as muslim, I still don't agree with everything that is particularly 'Islamic'. I do believe in a god, but I don't believe in being exclusive to people who are either atheists, etc. I personally think God doesn't punish good people regardless of faith, and that hell is temporary, or not as extreme as people say it is. I surely at least agree with the basic 10 commandments.
Also, I see Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians fighting a lot in the middle east. Funny how people fight with those who are the most like them. Some mulsims also forget it's a sin to point out the sins of a person for the sake of ridicule, or to cause unnecessary conflict or to force their religion upon others. ( (Quran 2:256), (Surah An-Nisa (4): 148)). Ironically in Islam, women and men are subjected to the same punishments for their sins, so 100 lashes for adultery, yet in middle eastern countries that "embrace the shariah law", women are often stoned to death(yet the arabic quran doesn't mention such thing) and men don't face any punishment for adultery. Though, Christian Countries are usually the most tolerant at the very least. Lesser religious countries like Japan still have things like intense collectivism that does drive people into things like suicide.
Is religion nothing but an ideology when you strip the meaning of god/higher beings from it? Or is it another manual.
Funny how hypocrisy is everywhere, this world would be better if we allowed others to see ourselves for who we are.
We have people in religions, positions of leadership, who are incapable of following the rules they opposed onto themselves, or twisting, creating loopholes to benefit themselves.
That's why we have a shit ton variations of the same religions. Am I right?
"Might as well create a new religion if you can't follow the rules."
May I ask, do you have any experience with extremists? Usually most atheists I know defend religions(Like Islam) with a passion, unless it's Christianity, so I think it's more having to do with being more democratic.
Come and worship the greatest of all the Gods: The Goddess Athena!!!
Again. The virginity thing is kind of a downer.
I prefer Hecate. Shadowy, three-faced, honored by gods and Titans, clever enough to, by masquerading as Libertas, become the patron goddess of our country. Her intentions are murky and probably terrifying, but that's why I want to be on her side!
Oh come on, virginity is sexy! It makes her all the more appealing!!!
Maybe if you go to heaven, then she'd let you hit
This shit is funny
Hm no. As @Virgin Pure suggested, I prefer women I have a chance with.
We have also discussed Athena's misogyny before. Someone like her could never respect my propensity for simping!
It depends what you mean by extremist. It seems to be "normal" for hundreds of millions of people to believe that those who don't follow their ideology deserve to be tortured for eternity: I consider that to be extreme. By that measure, my father certainly is an extremist, if not my my mother (she's not vocal about it).I'll have to agree. While I do label myself as muslim, I still don't agree with everything that is particularly 'Islamic'. I do believe in a god, but I don't believe in being exclusive to people who are either atheists, etc. I personally think God doesn't punish good people regardless of faith, and that hell is temporary, or not as extreme as people say it is. I surely at least agree with the basic 10 commandments.
Also, I see Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians fighting a lot in the middle east. Funny how people fight with those who are the most like them. Some mulsims also forget it's a sin to point out the sins of a person for the sake of ridicule, or to cause unnecessary conflict or to force their religion upon others. ( (Quran 2:256), (Surah An-Nisa (4): 148)). Ironically in Islam, women and men are subjected to the same punishments for their sins, so 100 lashes for adultery, yet in middle eastern countries that "embrace the shariah law", women are often stoned to death(yet the arabic quran doesn't mention such thing) and men don't face any punishment for adultery. Though, Christian Countries are usually the most tolerant at the very least. Lesser religious countries like Japan still have things like intense collectivism that does drive people into things like suicide.
Is religion nothing but an ideology when you strip the meaning of god/higher beings from it? Or is it another manual.
Funny how hypocrisy is everywhere, this world would be better if we allowed others to see ourselves for who we are.
We have people in religions, positions of leadership, who are incapable of following the rules they opposed onto themselves, or twisting, creating loopholes to benefit themselves.
That's why we have a shit ton variations of the same religions. Am I right?
"Might as well create a new religion if you can't follow the rules."
May I ask, do you have any experience with extremists? Usually most atheists I know defend religions(Like Islam) with a passion, unless it's Christianity, so I think it's more having to do with being more democratic.
There's a Christopher Hitchens quote:
"Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."
I think a lot of so-called "Christian countries" are like that.
I think when people take sides about conflicts in the Middle East (and perhaps elsewhere), they often like to claim they're primarily concerned about the individuals at risk of harm, but it's usually fairly clear to me that this is not the case. For example, with the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's quite predictable that those who are pro-Israeli tend to be Christians and perhaps right-wing, while those who are pro-Palestine tend to be Muslim and/or Marxists who are anti-American (or at least American neo-cons who start lots of wars).
I've seen people in the UK be on each side who protest when there's some outrage in that conflict, on either side, but they don't seem to care about conflicts where more people are being killed, like Syria. I don't think fundamentalist Christians really care about Jews, because they think they're going to hell for denying Jesus, they just think Israel has to exist for the End Times to happen...and I don't think most fundamentalist Muslims especially care about the life of the average Palestinian Muslim (compared to say the average Syrian Muslim). They just use every outrage for their own political reasons. I'm biased in the sense that I'm opposed to religion, but peace seems unachievable when too many individuals are not motivated by self-preservation (nevermind concern for others) because they think their religion is right and they're going to get eternal life even if they die at a young age.
Islam as it was originally created is incompatible with democracy, but if current totalitarian "Muslim countries" move towards democracy, they will become more moderate in line with what people actually want.
I see, I can understand why now that you dislike religion. Personally, my Dad's side are Christian and Atheists, Dad is personally protestant Christian, but he doesn't exhibit any extremist beliefs, he personally dislikes Islam as he believes that the profit Muhammad(PBUH) married a 6/9 year old. Personally, I don't know what to believe as the hadiths aren't always valid, and there are so many imans that lie. Perhaps he never did, and pedophiles say that he did justify marrying a child, or the Hadith could have been forged, etc. Perhaps like you said, he could be a myth. My mom is muslim, yet she says some extremist stuff, but her actions don't match. Funny because she rather marry a Christian and a Jew, and date a Buddhist, than marry another muslim. She did deal with genital mutilation and a very misogynistic culture, as she does hold some bitter feelings towards the men of her own ethnic group with the exceptions of her brothers. Far enough into my mom's side, there are Buddhists and Shintoist, but they aren't religious at all from what I have seen.
When I was younger, I did deal with male relatives from my mom's side that made me very uncomfortable, and down right disgusted. I saw things like polygamy, incest, racists, misogynists, pedophiles, etc. And I won't forget the time when a man approached me for marriage when I was 9, my mom down right refused, I'm glad. My grandfather stopped talking to my mom for marrying out of the religion, and having a 'mongrel' child, me, but he eventually lost his extremist beliefs after living in the States.
Indeed, people look for ways to seek privileges and a shitty justification to oppose their rule, but would a perfect god allow their name to be used in vain? I don't think so.
I see, why can't Palestinians and Israelites live peacefully together? Also who on Earth thought it was a good idea to create a country of Jews in the Middle East where they would be cornered by neighbors that despised them as much as ****** himself?
That is true, people often only care for themselves/communities. Often, we say we are moral yet we still inflict oppression. For example, US bans slavery, but over 95% of products sold their are made in China by workers who are barely paid enough to eat, and are replaced on a daily basis since a lot of them keep on dying from things like suicide and starvation. Are we really that moral when we still continue to contribute to evil just for something cheaper? Why can't we just buy what we need and not waste money on useless crap that is probably made by a child slave?
Why do we all pretend that we live in a better world, yet we still act out on our evil tendencies?
Even worse, why do people break their own rules in the name of their god? Do they just use the name of god just to cover up their alt-motives?
Furthermore, there are people who only care for their own communities, very few people care about all of humanity. After all, most of us are very tribalistic.
Indeed, well surely at least Turkey is doing much better than the rest of the middle east, but again it does have some European influence.
I like hearing your insight, while we both have different stances on religion, I still can see through my own biased lenses that you speak with a lot of honesty.
Sometimes, I just wish that all people can just get along end of the day, but that would just be another dream that can't be accomplished.
I don't like being separated from people, at least good people. I like being connected with everyone, and feeling as if I am a part of others. And as a kid, I used to cry at the thought that people may never overcome their differences.
@IndomitableKingOfGnomes
You've said technology positivism and also opposing to communism.
The sense of communism/socialism is collectivism. When interests of a group as whole is set above the interests of any minority, including of an individual. On practice this mainly means that interests of a majority are above interests of minorities. It's the philosophy of a compassion and love to other people.
The opposite to this idea is "liberalism", where individual interests and even perception have highest value, while the society is represented by totally competing individuals. It's the philosophy of hate to anyone. And of mind speculativity moving to escapism side, to a irrationalism (magical thinking). Hithlerism was based on same idea that interests of a minority prevail, being created by some of European aristocracy to hold own privileges by a war against geting popularity socialistic humanism and Russians which have established socialism as state ideology.
Let's overcome general basics as good and evil, love and hate, pleasure and suffering as two equal forces which motivate to anything and to which the both approaches are close. Let's concentrate on more concrete political ideology and situation.
USA claims and practically follows to liberalism as own ideology. So interests of a minority is higher than anything there.
This leads to a wish that a minority had as much as possibly of resources, while the majority had it the least to allow the resources be moved to a minority. Technology needs resources (materials/energy, knowledge, labor). Any good what technology may give should move to a minority, while a majority should be holded away from technology to take lesser of resources on own interests.
Where exists technologically developed society - it should be destroyed and archaized, irrationalism (including magical thinking in redundant degree) should be supported there to be an obstacle to technology development and usage.
From the point of liberalism (anti-communism) an ideal situation is when you live on local technologically developed territory (a minority). While, the majority of people are weaker without an access to advanced technology to do not take resources which you may use yourself, and being weaker are easier to be controlled for own interests (used as cheap labor, biology material, etc). This majority also could to help to improve the technology, but is prefered to be hold with low knowledge to be better controlled.
Liberalism predisposes to a the situation when most of people have no access to good technology and hold on lowest technology level as possibly, as the mean to take more of resources for a minority and to keep better control over the majority in the interests of a minority.
In the example of USSR, - there was among highest technology levels in the world, among best of mass educations, best in the world mass medicine, was high and stably arised % of people which lived in technically advanced homes (urbanisation). A country which had huge artificial restrictions for world trade cooperation, needed to spend much of resources for military protection of itself and allies, which was seriously destroyed by 2 recent wars - anyway was among most prosperious and most technologically developed. As unlike with capitalistic/liberalistic regimes (including in Russia after 1991), the resources were tried to be used for most of people inside (instead being sent outside by local "aristocracy") and the efficiency of centralized economy was much higher.
So it's liberalism what can be said being the obstacle to high technology level, technology development and productive rationalism. From the point of most peoples' life, as minimum.
Nawcissism
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Happy Science seems like something a crackhead would come up with. After all, the religious leader made a fricking anime about the religion
Christianity, but you have to ignore the rules and logic and contradictions - it's all meant to gaslight you or make you so angry you have a truly Christ-like experience anyway. Christianity is true because it represents the Oneness beyond ego, Christ consciousness is the realization we all are from the same fabric of humanity. It can obviously be taken into abusive ways where people's own goals and identities no longer matter and they are now some creepy cult. It's more of a physical subtle real thing though. More of a power, but also more of the true ultimate divine realization that only Oneness and non duality is true and everything else is an illusion designed to trap you. It's just interpreted by fools. Really foolish people tend to think they are the most religious the same way very poor people are obsessed with money yet if they ever came across money they'd lose it the same day as they wouldn't know how to invent or handle it responsibly or turn it into even more money, the true meaning would just be completely lost on them and they'd go back their bigoted and lost ways etc.
The other two religious aren't as true because they mistake religious liberation for lustful power and thrist- Christianity in it's pure form actually doesn't do this even though of course you are going to get some tyrant Karen who thinks she's a "Christian" doing unimaginable things to innocent gay newborn babies. But the difference between lust and momentarily lust is it makes you feel like a God in the moment but then the after burn is guilt and punishment of the sin, or realizing you can never meet up with the desire anyway- that's where Judaism and Islam both fail. Christianity is true spirit is that it really uniquely liberates you from the bondage of control and self-obsession and self-lust and narcissism.
I seemed to troll people here and hurt their delicate heterosexual feelings ((I'm honest it wasn't my intention)) when I told them they are much more likely to have a truly religious experience looking extreme internet porn than they are going to church, but that's because the real God hangs out with outcasts and rebellious weirdos as they are always more closer to being uniquely true religious than the Karen who wears the cardigan and goes to church, even though that person of course would definitely think they are being more righteous naturally. And maybe the Karen is more naturally righteous and the weirdo perv is just a weirdo perv and not a hidden occultist witch, but the thing is you never really know, only God knows and only God can judge that, there is no rules, there is only the magic and power and not power Oneness of the Power of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ we Gay, Gay Men!
Gaslightza aka @Eliza Thomason - how is life treating you?
I don't think a perfect being would punish someone for their honestly-held beliefs. I'm not perfect, but I wouldn't torture someone for not believing in me: that only makes the God that many people follow less reasonable than me, which doesn't make it seem perfect.
Both Jews and Muslims think they have a God-given right to the land. That makes the problem difficult to resolve I think. Ideally, it'd be best if the UN governed the area and neither side had it.
In Northern Ireland, for decades, there was religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, and few people had hope that this would ever end. But the violence has now largely stopped. I think it's possible for something similar to happen between Israelis and Palestinians, except I still think it'll be much more difficult as long as significant numbers think they have a God-given right to the land. But polling in the past has shown that both populations want a peace deal to be formed (maybe during times of large numbers of outrages or open conflict, this decreases).
I think more diverse societies probably result in people having higher levels of empathy for outsiders. I think culture also helps (like how data shows that people who read or watch a lot of fiction have higher levels of empathy, as the stories make them appreciate the plight of those who have lived differently to themselves).
People often do care a lot about the suffering of others, it's just there's often only so much they can handle in their own immediate lives, nevermind stuff that happens miles away.
I eat meat, but if I had to kill animals myself in order to do so, I'm not sure I could do it. I'm not sure if that's hypocrisy or not.
When there's a big appeal because of some disaster in some other country, people are often very generous, but this is usually a highly inefficient way of raising money to solve the world's problems (most charities are highly inefficient, and there will almost certainly be better ways of spending the money, from a long-term perspective (like buying mosquito nets) - a lot of disasters get comparatively little money at all.
The second of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals aimed to be complete by 2030 is: Zero hunger (No hunger)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustai...elopment_Goals
It's been estimated that to achieve zero hunger worldwide would cost $30 billion a year. The US defense budget for the last year is $842 billion. Think how much money could be saved if countries spent more money achieving this goal rather than spending it on their defense, considering how much conflict is caused by lack of resources.
Ideally, countries would resolve differences more through international bodies like the United Nations. I think it'd be better for example if Western countries like the USA funded international peacekeeping forces much more, and their own armies less. Polling in the past (probably still true) for example has shown that Muslim countries in the Middle East don't like it when the USA and "the West" get involved in that area, probably even in situations where they probably should, like Syria. But there will probably be situations where the UN decides against action in places like Syria, because of a country like Russia having a veto against. The UN needs heavily reforming. I think of the five permanent members of the Security Council (the ones with veto powers), France and the UK should probably lose their veto (it's been decades since they used it in a way that block a vote), as well as Russia, and countries like India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico and South Korea, and maybe Germany should be added (some of the strongest countries in the world with democracy, while being a diverse selection. Although maybe they should get rid of the veto altogether.
i think this quesiton is impossible to answer. theres a quite a few belief systems that don't believe in correctness in its common sense.
at some point the line between correct and incorrect ceases to exist , or there are multiple truths at the same time. To say that there IS a correct answer is the answer in itself.
I'll try answering this based on what I've learned about the psychology of religion so far.
Any religion that gives an adequate expression of the unconscious situation could be said to be a true religion. This of course depends on the person or the culture he lives in.
As the personality develops new unconscious constellations appear, so the religion changes.
In primitive cultures the personality is relatively undeveloped and the unconscious appears in nature as different spirits.
Christianity is an advanced religion where the whole psyche is projected into the drama of God and his son. This illustrates how the ego is linked to and transformed by the greater unconscious.
Truly Christian people are those who feel this on some basic level. But they might not be able to put it into words.
Religions can be ranked from primitive to more advanced. Christianity is relatively high. But Christianity doesn't solve the problem of evil so it can still be developed or replaced by a more advanced religion. Marie-Louise von Franz suggested that alchemy could be such a religion because it also deals with the problem of evil/the feminine. I am not really sure though how that could happen, because then people would have to feel that alchemy gives an adequate expression for unconscious processes, but even if it does so in theory, I am not sure it would appeal to modern people anymore.
Personally I try to study Christianity and learn more about it and develop a better feeling for it, building on what I got in childhood. I've learned it's possible to take it symbolically but still in a genuine way. I think most of us need some kind of religion or way to express the unconscious in order to stay sane. It doesn't necessarily have to be an official religion.
Current great symbols in our culture could for example be the hermaphrodite, or the devouring, dangerous unconscious projected as climate change. Mythologically this is the story how we got too cut off from the unconscious, and it is now threatening to take revenge (projected as natural disasters, sea levels rising). This psychological situation could fit many modern people, so maybe it's a true religion.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I feel like holographic panoramic things such as Jungianism, Gulenkonism and Sheldrakeism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqBDnd64Do) require lots of faith. So far Sheldrakeism seems to be morphologically resonated super set of Jungian stuff, so I'm rolling with it now.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Sheldrake's experiments are replicable at home and I'm under the impression all the parapsychology stuff is supposed to be dialectical-algorithmic anyway. Rupert Sheldrake really doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as socionics. Parapsychology is legit (though it takes a proper degree of spiritual maturity and wisdom not to be confused in what it implies) and socionics is a silly Soviet system trying to force everyone into the workplace, even though unlike some other systems that have been discussed recently (Human Design, Michael teachings, etc.) you at least get to pick the type that seems the most reasonable for you rather than someone trying to force you into the opposite type so you'll pay them more money. Well, people do that too in socionics, it just hasn't been a very successful strategy overall when you look at the success of Gulenko, Aushra, and Jack, who basically let people pick types to a certain degree, vs. people like Alive, Sol, and lavos, who shoehorn everyone into a type that makes no sense for them and who basically no one has heard of. One way to make money on people's egos: actually feed their ego instead of doing the whole original sin type of thing. Also why I don't care about so-called postmodern neo-Marxism aka intersectionality, if it runs on self-flagellation rather than self-congratulation it won't work very well long-term because loving yourself is more accurate than hating yourself, narcissists don't really love themselves as have been pointed out, they're compensatory. Which kind of brings a new light to the whole Aristotelean virtue ethics if you really think about it, the idea that maybe the two extremes just stem from one deficiency and the opposite extreme is equally illusory while the middle is sort of the only reality.
I am happy for you getting involved with Rupert Sheldrake though. Maybe you'll really learn it and then get out of the cult of socionics. Sheldrake's ideas do not constitute a cult, and they have saved me personally from many cults throughout my life. Granted, I still joined this forum, but I was never really pulled into the cult ideologically, I just underestimated the complete lack of security on this site and what kind of ownership it had due to how young I was and thought all forums were super official, but I never bought it, and that's the part that counts. Maybe the one thing that really made me feel invincible enough to come here will pull everyone out. That would be very poetic. I also take real religion more seriously now, even though I didn't then, I just thought parapsychology stuff was cool, even though people like Rupert Sheldrake definitely believe in religion despite also believing in things like telepathy and psychokinesis... Well, Paul N. Temple who co-founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences and Chris Putnam (though I think his books are unreadable) did too, so anyone who thinks all the people looking into psychic phenomena are just doing something demonic like Jack "Dajjal" Parsons is wrong, but as Goethe said, Sagt es niemand, nur den Weisen, though of course, the biggest part of that is restraining your stupid ego. If you want to PM me about his ideas like psychic pigeons, please do, even though I'm not joining the Court of the Red King. All the things you're talking about are actually the things I talked about ages ago. I first heard about Daniel Everett 8 years ago. It didn't mean all that much to me 8 years ago, unlike Rupert Sheldrake. I disagree with Daniel Everett since I've read his ideas now, but 8 years ago it just didn't matter to me even though I heard of him fairly often then. So, great for you! You first heard about it when it actually meant something to you. Your mind will finally be free! Which sounds like something someone who wants to use psi and/or talk to people who supposedly never communicate would say.
As for me, I always sing „Die Gedanken sind frei“ before I break prison bars and walls with my thoughts, and the jailer cries out, "Nooo Coer, that wasn't supposed to be literal! Also, no one cares about German songs!"
Regarding the best religion: the best religion is Truth, but not all the people who run around saying "believe in Truth" because they wanted something exotic like Blavatsky who might have very possibly left the biggest mess ever regardless of her very likely being a spy who was just using her writing to encode her spying activities (hence why she also got rejected by the Russian government when she applied to spy for them, since they probably feared her working as a double agent.) The best religion is the One, the Monad. Surely, we live in the best of all possible worlds, as Voltaire had his fictional character say due to Leibniz. Seeking knowledge without wisdom is always a poor idea, but we really should have both all the knowledge, and all the wisdom, so it's not about excluding knowledge, it's about including wisdom. The fault of what Spengler would call our Faustian civilization, even though Spengler of course saw no fault in Faustian civilization, being Spengler.
#PopLockAndNameDrop
Taoism, sprites of nature and beauty cruising through waves of time and destiny empowered in reflection and unifying trance focusing of mind and spirit to walk the highest paths of tall belief and mastery of elements with the Force counseling for lands and horizons expanding the soft whisper of compassion and balance!!
Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ A fair face may fade, but a beautiful soul lasts forever. Lucky Numbers - 53, 10, 29, 14, 1, 21
Mr. Mime = Mastermind
Marius Florin aka LeoSuperCluster as Raging Bolt the Raikou number 1021 and SolitaryWalker brought glory to the years of Silver and forged Pichu, wisdom of force and flair to exhibit dinosaur questing pointers electrocuting cinema and blueprints of emporiums to undertow flows jungle tossing galaxy spanning shivers of essence gems and portals of roads to destruction and arboretums folding castles and swordsmanship of dreams and counters to pleasant vibrations and holy water sprouting evanescent stars and puzzles of grades to saffron climax
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...k-2024-edition
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
