PHILOSOPHY VS RELIGION: from PeoplesBook2000 and
Peoples Forum: "Like the twisting lines of a
double helix, science and religion dance together,
but never really touch, an inevitable paradox..."


22 Jan 1999

Lo scopo di tutta la scienza è, in ultima analisi,
di elevare il valore dell'esistenza dell'umana
personalità. Chi non
coltiva la scienza con questo fine, lavora
soltanto perchè ha visto il suo maestro fare
altrettanto; "investiga" perchè
per caso ha imparato appunto questo, ma non può
venire chiamato un "pensatore libero". (Rudolf
Steiner da "Verità
e Scienza") Complimenti per le tua opera, è
veramente un ulteriore contributo che hai dato
all'umanità pensante.
Orazio Viscuso dalla Sicilia (ITALY)


14 Feb 1999


"World order can be founded only on an unshakable
consciousness of the oneness of mankind, a
spiritual truth
which all the human sciences confirm.
Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize
only one human species,
albeit infinitely varied in the secondary aspects
of life. Recognition of this truth requires
abandonment of prejudice
--prejudice over everykind--race, class, color,
creed, nation, sex, degree of material
civilization, everything which
enables people to consider themselves superior to
others." --The Universal House of Justice, "The
Promise of World Peace", pp.28-29.

04 Apr 1999


one race the human race! human rights are God
given rights there is one loving creator there is
one un folding religion
there is one human family The Baha'i Faith
jevlionslair

06 Apr 1999


Prayer for the Balkans
O Thou Kind Almighty, we supplicate at the throne
of grace for mercy for our sins; mercy for the
great destruction
of life, the blood that has been shed in the
Balkans, the children that are being made orphans,
the mothers losing their
dear sons, the sons who have become fatherless,
the cities that have been destroyed, the many
hearts that have been
filled with blood, the many tears that are being
shed and the many spirits that are in a state of
agitation! O Lord, be merciful,
extinguish this spirit of war, this consuming
fire, this peril, this gloomy darkness, from the
face of the earth. Cement together
these hearts. Let the Sun of truth dawn upon all.
O Lord! This world is dark. Guide us toward a
brilliant light; the horizons
are gloomy with the clouds of war; disperse these
impenetrable clouds. Grant us a holiness and calm;
dispose of these quarrels;
illuminate the horizon of life, so that the sun of
real loyalty may shine with His rays. May these
dark hearts become illuminated,
may these blind eyes become open, may there deaf
ears become gifted with hearing. O Lord, cause Thy
divine justice to appear
in this world. Summon these people to the banquet
of international peace, so that they may live
together in the utmost state of love.
May all the religions and all nations embrace each
other in this spirit of universal kindness, and
may hatred be forgotten. O Lord!
Confirm this just government in the establishment
of peace, so that it may hold aloft the banner of
reconciliation in the Balkans.
May the light of love shine and flame forth
undefiled. O Lord!, thou art Almighty, thou are
Merciful, thou are Clement, thou are Kind! -
Abdu'l-Baha

18 Apr 1999


Upanishads: "The Creation of the World from Soul."
(from "Hinduism", ed. by Louis Renoir)
"Even today this world is differentiated just by
name and form, as the saying is: 'He has such a
name, or such a form.' ...
Whoever worships one or another of these - he
knows not; for he is incomplete with one or
another of these.
One should worship with the thought that he is
just one's self, for therein all these become one.
That same thing,
namely this self, is the trace of this All, for by
it one knows this All."
"God is simple. Everything else is complex."
- as said by Paranahansa Yogananda in "An
Autobiography of a Yogi" (pg.40)

18 Apr 1999

From a Distance...


Some years ago, the Dalai Lama visited Santa Fe,
New Mexico, where lives a thriving Tibetan
community.
At a talk to a large audience about peace in Tibet
during China's occupation, somone asked him a very
complex
and long question that was difficult to
understand. His Holiness pondered the question for
awhile and answered
with a twinkle in his eye, something to this
effect: "When we are in the middle of our problem,
it looks very big and
impossible to solve. But if we step back from it
at a distance, it becomes much smaller and more
manageable.
Try seeing it from far away, and it will become
quite small."
I remembered this when i was looking at the Hubble
space telescope's pictures of galaxies 13 billion
light years away,
the most distant things in the universe. Maybe
from there, our problems on Earth are really quite
small, but they seem
so very large to us, because we are in the middle
of it. The space program is useful in a New Age
kind of way to see
ourselves differently. From such a great distance,
I wonder if our planet Earth is not even more
beautiful than we can see?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.tibet.com/DL/index.html
Santa Fe/New Mexico

06 May 1999


"One."
"In the end, we are one planet, one people. Each
one of us carries in him
or her self a fragment of every other, and this is
how we are
joined. For those who will have the opportunity to
travel and meet our
other lives throughout the world, it will become
immediately
obvious. We are not so different from one another.
For some reason, we
had been living under some spell that, like a
dilatorious
planetary fog, has kept us apart and ignorant of
each other. We are all
one, and I sincerely hope that in the future this
uniqueness, of
each one of us, will bring us together into a
common bond rather than
tear us apart. We are friends, and this is
innately born in us.
Witness children. That we later fall out into
suspicion and fear is
regrettable, most likely a byproduct of an ego
that has kept us tied to
an illusion. We are not so different. In me is all
of you, as in you is all
of me. I do not feel this is so profound a
statement. Rather it is
spoken from the heart. Once we are free to love
one another, this
statement will no longer seem strange or alien to
us. We are all born
into this world together, travel together, and
then within a short time,
die from it together. We are very much together on
a small planet.
We are one."
(from Habeas Mentem: the Given Word, Ch.40)
http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-forty.htm

28 May 1999


"Superstition is belief that comes from fear and
leads to fear. Spirituality is what comes from
love and leads to love, as do the hopes of all
religion. One is where we came from, the other
where we're going. Dream."
-Ankeaom

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

From page titled: "Shamanism Working with Animal
Spirit Core"
"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is
our first duty to them, but to stop there is not
enough. We have a higher mission - to be of
service to them whenever they require it. If you
have men who will exclude any of God's creatures
from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will
have men who will deal likewise with their fellow
men."
Saint Francis of Assisi


08 Jun 1999


I would like to propose a question to help me
understand the criminal. If microdecisions are
powered by passions rather than compassions, does
this reflect the criminal mind? Do microdecisions
reflect our inner being? If so what is the
microdecision that causes fear?

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

09 Jun 1999


"Faith or Fear?"
"Where there is no faith, there is fear." This was
said to me by my friend Mark S. one evening over
dinner at the Alta Coffe Shop, Newport Beach, Ca.
We were discussing what drive the criminal mind.
Was it fear and passion, or a lack of faith in
something bigger, like religion or God? If
microdecisions are reflected in all we do, then
when we do from fear rather than love and faith,
are we falling away from a higher self into that
of a lower self, into crime? Or gambling? Or
hurting and destroying things, even ourselves? Or
maybe when we pray, our micromind is also
affected. Perhaps prayer is the answer, and the
criminal mind, in his or her anger and passions,
has turned away from the passion of love. If we
pray for the criminal, and the criminal prays, do
we bring into their lives some sort of redemption,
though we are blind to what or how this is, and
cause some magic thing to happen to them to bring
them back into the good? Away from fear? But then:
"What is the microdecision that causes fear?" (see
above) Abuse, pain, hand me down fears, lack of
trust, lack of faith? I do not know. In our
country, United States of America, where we had
seen an increase in crime over the years when we
had witnessed a decrease in faith, in moral
values, then maybe it makes sense: What causes
fear is a lack of faith. Can this fear be replaced
by compassion, love, prayer? I think so. We can
overcome fear with faith.
I.D.Alexander

13 Jun 1999


GIORDANO BRUNO: Why is it still Heresy? I think it
is time the Church reverse's its prejudice against
a free thinking human being who saw into the
Infinite.
"Welcome Freethinkers! We want to propagate the
"Nolana philosophy". FraÕ GiordanoÕs
transmigrating soul still wait for his just
homage. The man was so great that also intimidate
all noble spirits that recognized his value:
Galileo, Spinoza, Cartesio, Leibniz, Goethe,
Schiller, and we can continue...!"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/1457/index.html

18 Jun 1999


Does God punish? Did all those who die in a
natural catastrophe deserve to? I don't think so.
Our decisions determine fate. Decisions made with
singularity intentions are authentic. Mark June 99

21 Jun 1999


God does not control everything. Nor punish.
Rather, like a loving parent watching Her or His
children (you choose) at play will let them do so
of their own free will. But if one gets hurt, or
needs help, She or He will come instantly to their
aid. It's ok to ask for help, for it will be
given. But our play is nevertheless our own.
Bruno/California

25 Jun 1999


11. Good men and bad men differ from each other in
their nature. Bad men do not recognize a sinful
act as sinful; if its sinfulness is brought to
their attention, they do not cease doing it and do
not like to have anyone inform them of their
sinful acts. Wise men are sensitive to right and
wrong; they cease doing anything as soon as they
see that it is wrong; they are grateful to anyone
who calls their attention to such wrong acts.
From "The Teaching of Buddha: The Way of
Purification", Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, Tokyo, Japan.
http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

26 Jun 1999


"Being good is meditation. Meditation is being
love. Love is being; good is that."
Ankeom

30 Jun 1999


The virtue of "patience" is porportional to our
perspective of time. It is variable, distorted,
based on illusion. mcr Costa Mesa, CA

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

02 Jul 1999


TOLERANCE is a high art. It is a detachment from
worldly concerns, a vision of a higher order, an
act of forgiveness. Like patience, it is seeing
the world from a different perspective, one where
events, or persons attached to those events, or
their beliefs, is part of a greater destiny than
the one controlled by our will or understanding.
Think how intolerant have been ideas in the past:
Communism seemed so perfect an ideology, but all
who disagreed with it were persecuted, even put to
death. The Church of the Middle Ages exercised
absolute power and the same intolerance. People
were tortured or burned at the stake for their
beliefs. So is it in modern times, where some
religions or ideologies will not tolerate dissent,
and the unbelievers will be punished or stoned to
death. This can be true even for the world's most
progressive ideas: Democracy, human rights,
equality, all are great ideas, but to disagree
with any of these doctrines is to court
persecution and punishment. So there needs to
always be an exit, an escape from the inescapable,
a forgiveness. Free speech is one such escape, as
is the right to not incriminate oneself, or
another. They are illogical in the face of reason,
of complete proof of one's guilt. And yet, to let
a tolerance exist even against logic is a
necessary condition for human existence. Does one
forgive the criminal, the unfaithful spouse, the
wayward child, misgjuided believer, the drug
addict, the insane? Yes. We do not empower them,
may guide them in their error, but nor do we
condemn them. Theirs is a path that makes no sense
to us, but one which they must follow until they
themselves can see their errors, and lift up.
There is no one absolute way to see the truth. It
is different for each one of us. If we can learn
to live in agreement with this, and with each
other even in our differences, then we are being
tolerant. Then ours is a higher vision. It is a
difficult path to follow, to live with tolerance
and forgiveness, but it is the highest art.
-Bruno.

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

04 Jul 1999


In the greater scheme of things, there are no bad
people, only confused ones. This confusion is
because we are attached to the smaller things in
life, and focus only on ourselves. If we can look
beyond our troubles and see them from a distance,
they will appear smaller, and our greater vision
can raise us up from our confusion. In this way,
we can step out of our personal attachments, and
become good people.
(USA)

06 Jul 1999


"There is the good and the bad in all of us.
Unfortunately most often the good is made to
sacrifice and pay for the bad. The tolerant, the
kind, the loving, are martyred to the bad. It is
not the way of God, but it is the way of this
world. When that reverses, it will be a very quiet
revolution."

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------

10 Jul 1999


TRUTH IS A GIFT. Like peace and trust, it is given
of one's free will, a gift from the soul. Unlike
greed or fear or lust, which steal the gift, truth
is what we give, one step before we can forgive.
SUFFERING is a cleansing of the soul. It is the
time of our soul's realignment with the center of
our truth. The ones who give us our suffering are
chosen to deliver to us a lie. By doing this, they
sacrifice their own good and lose their own truth;
they pay a high price for this, and we should pity
them. Their trespass destroys not only our own
balance but also theirs, and we all suffer. When
the soul is then forced to regain its center in
its truth, it cleanses the soul. When the Lord's
Prayer says: "Lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil..." He is referring to the
soul who delivers to us a lie, who leads us into
temptation. To be delivered from this lie is the
cleansing that follows. After suffering is the
time for healing.

14 Jul 1999


On Pleiades, Atlas' seven daughters, Jove answers:
"Let them go with their seven lamps to give light
to that nocturnal and midnight holy wedding... And
to this region which they leave let Conversation,
Companionship, Marriage, Confraternity, Church,
Society, Agreement, Covenant, and Confederation
come to establish their residences. And let them
there be joined to Friendship, because where she
is not, there are instead, Contamination,
Confusion, Disorder. And unless they are guided,
they are not themselves, because they never find
themselves in truth among wicked people, but
posses the nature of Monopoly, Conventicle, Sect,
Conspiracy, Mob, Plot, or something with another
detestable name and being."
-Giordano Bruno, "The Expulsion of the Trimphant
Beast"- ibid

19 Jul 1999


PRANAYAMA:
In as breathÉ I thus do rise in cooling rush of
Lighted birth. Then down as breathÉ I thus do fall
to warm the heart and wed the earth.
And let this practice so extend to move as
smoothly as a breeze That even as the grasses bend
they welcome it with ease. I welcome it with ease.
A rhythm like poetic verse touches deep the heart
to feel And loose the chains of anguished cells
revealing waves of Joy to heal.
And on this wave a Word resounds deep into the Eye
to know That each may see the passing life is his
to make the wonder show.
And grip not to the Word in stream lest ye leave
the heart aside But join into symphonic play the
coming and the ebbing tide.
To hear upon the current still a whisper call, a
friendly voice Making clear the Path remains until
I make the choice.
In as breathÉ I thus do rise in cooling rush of
lighted birth Then down as breathÉ I thus do fall
to warm the heart and wed the earth.
Resonating Sound of Thee for each and every cell
to find The inner flow along the spine an
involution of a kind where sings the heart of Joy
where sings the heart of Joy.
And when the flow of love is full without a single
thread to miss The coming and the going join
tender as a kiss.
Thus in time a ripeness comes where inner and the
outer see Without a trace of doubt to know that
there is naught but Thee. For there is naught but
Thee.
Into the Voice that You do speak to shape a Sound
of Love to hear A home in every place to be within
a Heart that You did steer the Endless Sounding
Love to hear.
A laugh to think someone might fail at passing
through the door to come. The Tallyman, Him smile
and say, "Welcome every single oneÉ Welcome
everyone."
(from the book, A Recipe for Bliss, by Carl
Schmidt. Published on website:
www.ThehOMeFoundation.com)

05 Aug 1999


Comments

ALBERT EINSTEIN: "A human being is part of a whole
called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in
time and space. He (sic) experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings, as something separate from
the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his
consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison
for us, restricting us to our personal desires and
to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our
task must be to free ourselves from this prison by
widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its
beauty." (AE's quote found in: "Forgiveness and
Other Acts of Love" by Stephanie Dowrick, chapter
on Tolerance)

13 Aug 1999


Comments

Ibid: DALAI LAMA Jesse Kornbluth: Your Holiness,
it is a great honor to welcome you to America
Online.
The Dalai Lama: Thank you. Me too. This is the
first time for me to communicate through this kind
of machine.
Jesse Kornbluth: We have 5,000 questions from our
members. I have read most of them. They can be
summed up, many of them, in one question. It is:
So much envy, hate and rage in the world. So much
violence, real and psychological. So many
broken-hearted people. Is there one simple thing
each of us can do to quiet the noise and start the
way to peace?
The Dalai Lama: I always feel every human being
has potential, good and bad. So there is no reason
to feel hopelessness. Each one has the potential
to create a peaceful life. And with that
conviction, the actual beginning must start from
within --- from within one individual. First, you
create some calm mind within yourself. Spread that
to the family and then to the society at large.I
think that if we look at the overall picture, we
often hear only the violence. But in Kosovo and
some other places, where force has been used,
people are becoming skeptical about the usage of
force. That's a sign that people are losing hope
in the use of force. That is a hopeful sign.
Thinking this way, you will get some kind of hope.
With hope, you can get determination. That's my
belief.
Jesse Kornbluth: In your new book, ÒEthics for the
New Millennium,Ó you write that religious belief
does not matter much. You say it is more important
to Òbe a good person.Ó Coming from a religious
leader, that seems radical. Please explain.
The Dalai Lama: Obviously there are many people
who do not believe in religion. In fact, the
majority [of] people are not very serious about
religious faith. So firstly, these people are also
human beings, and secondly, they are the majority.
So in the past, there are habits, and once you
have no interest in religion, they also see no
interest in compassion and forgiveness. Whether
they accept religion or not, people want happiness
and harmony. And the foundation of harmony is
compassion. That's the basis of our happiness and
our future. So whether they believe in religion or
not, they need a sense of human compassion. That
is my approach.

20 Aug 1999


Comments

VISHNU AVATARAS, TEACHERS OF LOVE AND COMPASSION:
BUDDHA AVATARA: This incarnation of Vishnu is
originally foreign to the cycle of Avataras of
Vishnu, and therefore is only briefly alluded to
in some of Puranas... Buddha's four 'Sublime
Verities': Pain exists, desire is the cause of
pain, this pain can be ended by Nirvana, and the
way that leads to Nirvana... the great thing is to
get rid of desire.. and a man dying in this state
will not again be born. Its moral code is one of
the most perfect; the spring of all virtue is
Maitri, which can be translated as Charity or
Love. 'It does not express friendship, or the
feeling of particular affection which a man has
for one or more of his fellow creatures, but that
universal feeling which inspires us with good-will
towards all men and constant willingness to help
them.'
KAMADEVA: In the 'Rig-Veda' Kama is described as
the first movement that arose in the ONE, after it
had come into life through the power or fervour or
abstraction... not of sexual enjoyment, but of
good in general. Kama is usually represented as a
beautiful youth, holding in his hands a bow and
arrows of flowers. He travels about through the
three worlds with his beautiful wife Rati... Kama
has many names indicative of the influence his is
supposed to exert amongst men: Madan, 'He who
intoxicates with love'; Manmatha, 'He who agitates
the mind'; Mara, 'He who wounds'; Pradyumna, 'He
who conquers all.'
KALKI AVATARA: When the practices taught by the
Vedas and institutes of laws shall nearly have
ceased, and the close of Kali Age shall be nigh, a
portion of that divine being who exists of his own
spiritual nature in the character of Brahma, and
who is the beginning and the end, and who
comprehends all things, shall descend upon the
earth. In descriptions of Kalki, he is represented
as a white man riding upon or bowing down before a
white horse, and with his sword in hand; he is the
purifier of the present degenerate age, and the
restorer of purity and goodnes.
--pp 224-261, "Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic"
by W.J. Wilkins, 1989, Rupa & Co. Calcutta, India.

22 Aug 1999


Comments

UNITY OF RELIGION: The Three Golden Rules.
The following are quotes found in the Scared
Scriptures of the western world's three main
religions: Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism.
Their common thread of belief sharing in Love,
Peace, and the Golden Rule, are as follows:
GOLDEN RULE: "Do onto others as you would have
them do onto you." Matthew 7:12: "Whatever you
would have people do for you, do the same for
them." Mohammed, the Hadith, 138: "Do unto all men
as you wish to have done unto you; and reject for
others what you would reject for yourselves."
PEACE: Mishna 1:18: "The world is preserved by
three things: truth, justice, and peace." Isaiah
2:4: "They shall beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more." Proverbs
24:17: "Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let
not your heart be glad when he stumbles." Matthew
5:44: "Love your enemies, bless them who curse
you, do good to them who hate you. And pray for
them who spitefully use you and persecute you."
James 3:18: "The fruit of righteousness is sown in
peace by peacemakers." Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are
the peacemakers, for they shall be called the
children of God." Mohammed, Koran, 5:35: "He who
slays one human being, it is as if he had slain
all mankind; he who saves one human being, it is
as if he had saved all mankind." Mohammed, the
Hadith, 340: "Shall I tell you what are better
acts than fasting, charity, and prayer? Making
peace between enemies are such acts; fir enmity
and malice tear up the heavenly rewards by the
roots."
LOVE AND COMPASSION: Mohammed, Koran, 2:191: "God
loves all those who do good." Mohammed, the
Hadith, 198: "God is gentle and loves gentleness."
Matthew 19:19: "You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." 1 John 4:16: "God is love; and he who
dwells in love dwells in God." Leviticus 19:18:
"You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge
against your own people, but you shall love your
neighbor as yourself." Micah 6:8: "O man, what is
good, and what does the Lord require of your? Only
to do justly; to love mercy; and to walk humbly
with your God." Christ, John 13:34: "A new
commandment I give unto you: That you love one
another."
The above are only a few examples, and there are
many more not only in the scriptures of the
Judeo-Christian-Moslem teachings, but also in the
teachings of all the world's great religions. If
you have any other contributions to the Unity of
Religion, your ideas, quotes, proverbs,
discussions, rebuttals, please communicate them
into the PeoplesBook at HumanCafe.com.

23 Aug 1999


Comments

"It is the domain of those with power to have
compassion. The weak cannot give."
-Ankeom

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Date:
31 Aug 1999


Comments

Ibid: "When you forgive, you move on. When you
move on, you give up a lot of bad karma. So
forgive and move on."

06 Sep 1999


Comments


I look forward to the soon return of our Lord and
savior Jesus Christ. There is so much sadness and
loneliness in this world surely he is the remedy
for these situations. When will all of this
sadness end. Our only hope is our king of Kings
and lord of Lords. I have 3 beautiful
grandchildren and I shutter at the world that they
have to grow up in and the many things that they
will have to endure. My hope and prayers for them
is in God almighty. I am thankful that He is in
control and there is hope in the future. I pray
for them and the people of the world and I can
rest assuredly that they are in His care. Thank
you God for the blessed hope. Daisy Williams,
Chicagoland Area

--------------------------------------------------

14 Sep 1999


Comments

DEVOTION:
"The single, most amazing expression of devotion
that I have ever witnessed occurred in the middle
of a blistering day in Calcutta. I was walking
through a park, in the heart of the city, heading
for an office. The sun was high and very intense.
I was anxiously anticipating the cool of the
air-conditioned building. I began to hear an
exquisite chant coming from a single man. I was
drawn into the Source of the sound. As I
approached him, I discovered that he was without
a single, normal limb. Both arms and both legs
were grotesquely deformed (possibly a case of
intentional disfigurement for the purposes of
beggingÖ possibly done to him by his parents or
guardians at birth). Why and how this had
happened, however, was irrelevant in that moment.
He lay on his back, eyes wide open, staring at the
infinite expanse of bright skyÖ chanting with
tremendous force, eloquence and feeling. It is
impossible to convey in words the joyous
exhilaration that he was expressing. In a moment
my complete smallness and pathetic dependence upon
the comforts of this temporal life flashed before
my eyes. I was both enthralled and humbled at the
same time. The gift of that moment remains for me
a deep well of inspiration. It defines the essence
of Devotion."
-Quote from "A Recipe for Bliss" by Carl Schmidt,
the hOMe Foundation,
http://www.thehomefoundation.com

02 Oct 1999


Comments

By simon on Saturday, October 2, 1999 - 12:01 pm:
Simon says that reason and faith are parallels
that can never meet. Like the twisting lines of a
double helix, science and religion dance together,
but never really touch, an inevitable paradox...
Simon, a skeptic and seeker.
--from the Forum at HumanCafe.com
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/


05 Oct 1999


Comments

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound
more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
so that you may be able to discern what is best
and may be pure and blameless until the day of
Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness
that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and
praise of God. --Paul of Tarsus (Philippians
1:9-11)

09 Oct 1999


Comments

UNITY OF RELIGION (continued from 22 August, 1999)
Duty to Unite the Human Race:
It is incumbent upon all the peoples of the world
to reconcile their differences, and, with perfect
unity and peace, abide beneath the shadow of the
Tree of His care and loving-kindness.
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p. 6)
The Baha'i Faith Unites Humanity:
The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God
and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and
promote the unity of the human race, and to foster
the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men.
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p. 215)
Guidelines for Uniting Humanity:
"Consort with the followers of all religions in a
spirit of friendliness and fellowship."
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings,p. 95
O humankind! Verily, ye are all the leaves and
fruits of one tree; ye are all one. Therefore,
associate in friendship; love one another; abandon
prejudices of race; dispel forever this gloomy
darkness of human ignorance, for the century of
light, the Sun of Reality hath appeared. Now is
the time for affiliation, and now is the period of
unity and concord. For thousands of years ye have
been contending in warfare and strife. It is
enough. Now is the time for unity. Lay aside all
self-purposes, and know for a certainty that all
men are the servants of one God Who will bind them
together in love and agreement. (`Abdu'l-Baha:
Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 322)
Submitted by Isaac,
mailto:icava@juno.com


12 Oct 1999


Comments

TEMPLE TO THE UNIVERSE
If I were to build a temple, it would be of
gigantic steel and concrete ribs open to the sky,
like a giant upturned rib cage, so that the wind
through it would make it sing like an aeolian harp
with the sweet melody of the heavens. And at its
center would be a shrine of text and images, and
the sweet smell of incense, dedicated to love and
goodness, health and peace...
...I once had a dream, long ago... ida

13 Oct 1999


Comments

RECONCILIATION BETWEEN RELIGIIONS
Ivan, Tell me what do you think of this article?
"...Baha'u'llah declared the necessity of peace
among the nations and the reality of
reconciliation between the religions of the world.
He announced that the fundamental basis of all
religion is one, that the essence of religion is
human fellowship and that the differences in
belief which exist are due to dogmatic
interpretation and blind imitations which are at
variance with the foundations established by the
Prophets of God. He proclaimed that if the reality
underlying religious teaching be investigated all
religions would be unified, and the purpose of
God, which is love and the blending of human
hearts, would be accomplished." (`Abdu'l-Baha:
Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 354)
mailto:icava@juno.com
* * * * * * Ivan's reply:
Dear Isaac, Alas, this is easier said than done.
In the end, from my observations, people are
attached to the fundamental tenets of their
religion, even if sometimes in unrealistic ways.
Take for example the idea of reincarnation. For
the Hindus and Buddhists, this is a real part of
their religion, and they are loathe to give it up.
Or take charity, which the Christians claim to
champion, but some religions may find it to be
counterproductive. ie: Why give money to beggars?
Why is charity important? etc... So the problems
run pretty deep, because of these differences of
belief. The only solution I can envision for the
future of Unity of Religion is to find common
grounds, and then to exploit the similarities for
the purpose of encouraging tolerance towards one
another's belief. If a Christian or Moslem is
really attached to his Heaven, and the Hindu to
reincarnation, then let them have them. And if
after death either one gets lost and ends up in
the others spiritual reality, then let him realize
that the universe may be big enough to accommodate
all beliefs, even those that entertain the absurd.
That is the ultimate freedom, isn't it? I think
this is why the wise fathers of this country, and
the contemporary thinkers of the time, labored to
create a civil social order that separates church
and state. Then each person within such a social
system has the freedom to believe and worship as
they see fit, provided they live within the
accepted confines of their society's laws. Not so
easy for a Moslem fundamentalist, for example,
since some of our laws are counter to their
practices, but we all manage. Think of Orthodox
Jews and what difficulties they have living in a
secular society like America, and yet they do. So
I agree with Baha'u'lla's contention that if we
studied the underlying fundamental teachings of
all the world's great religious teachers,
manifestation, etc. we would come to a similar
conclusion, that God is Love. But the gap between
all religions is still too great, and that's why
we need those small bridges, like the wonderful
quotes you found in common to the world's great
religions dealing with Peace and Love and the Gold
Rule. The other solution is to go the secular
route, one taken by America's founding fathers. In
the end, we may discover that religion as we now
know it today may become an anachronism in the
future, without bloody loyalties and warfare, and
people will learn to live in peace with each
other's beliefs like a kaleidoscope of spiritual
experiences valid for each and every human being.
That is a form of religion in itself. I hope this
answers your question. Take care, Ivan
mailto:humancafe@aol.com

16 Oct 1999


Comments

By Anonymous on Saturday, October 9, 1999 - 04:28
pm:
FREE WILL: We live in an interactive universe. It
is not only determinism, nor is it only free will.
Reality already determines for us our existence,
but it also determined for us our identity, the
freedom to be who we are as conscious beings.
These two interact, like friends or foes. I choose
my actions in reality, and reality responds, to
which I then can choose to respond. But this would
not be so if I were not conscious. I choose this.
--------------------------------------------------
--
From the Forum at HumanCafe.com -Ivan

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Date:
16 Oct 1999


Comments

"Be unrestrained as the wind, while carrying the
Message of Him Who hath caused the dawn of Divine
Guidance to break. Consider how the wind, faithful
to that which God hath ordained, bloweth upon all
regions of the earth, be they inhabited or
desolate. Neither the sight of desolation, nor
evidences of prosperity, can either pain or please
it. It bloweth in every direction, as bidden by
its Creator" - Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi
Effendi in "The Advent of Divine Justice" pp.
50-51
mailto:luijer29@hotmail
from Nampa, Idaho

23 Oct 1999


Comments

PLANETARY AWAKENING
Right at the shift of the ages and the turn of the
millennium--just as civilization finds itself at a
critical crossroads--a global information system
has emerged capable of instantaneously connecting
all of us. Simultaneously, humanity finds itself
in a rapid spiritual awakening, which has been
described as an acceleration, a grand catharsis, a
quickening, a christing of consciousness. The
Earth has grown a brain, expanded its minds, and
is discovering its destiny in a planetary network
of light. The combination illuminates the lamp of
hope...
--Excerpted from Ken Kalb's book "LightShift
2000". Kalb is a Vision Magazine astrologer and
Director of the Lightshift 2000 project, at
website: http:// www.lightshift.com .
"Someday, after we have mastered the winds, the
waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for
God the energies of love. Then, for the second
time in the history of the world, we will have
discovered fire." --Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Date:
23 Oct 1999


Comments


Human freedom is the first postulate of practical
reason... The immortality of the soul is the
second postulate of practical reason... The
existence of God is the third postulate of
practical reason... Who are we?... If God exists,
then there is an answer. --Hans Kung, "Does God
Exist?"


---------------------------------

By ialexa8476 on Friday, September 10, 1999 -
08:16 pm:
A purely secular question: Was Jesus Christ a
Being of such intense psychic sensitivity that He
could feel the whole world's pain? And if so, did
this intense burden of our pain drive Him into
such torment that in the end the only path open to
Him was to be crucified? Did His pain, his
crucifixion, then become a catalyst for a whole
world's psychic awakening? If so, can it happen
again?

By Anonymous on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 - 09:06
pm:
NEW GOD, THE SON...

"The process, which is taking place on Earth, is
the process of God's making it fertile for the
birth of a New God, God the Son. Therefore, among
us, the Universe and its structure arouse
interest. In the best instants of life our soul
directs by the ideas to stars and further them.
The brain and genetic code, were absorbed into our
process of perfection from the laws of physics,
and furthermore have a kind and all-understanding
soul. They are the embryos of the new God,
released from the burden of unnecessary memory of
the material world."


http://hometown.aol.com/Parkhom/Ch9.html by Vlad
Parkhom: God and the Idea, ch.

--------------------------------------------------
----------------------


* Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê *

Rev:5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that
sat on the throne a book written within and on the
backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I
saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice,
Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the
seals thereof?

http://nitpik.com/Bible/index.html

By Anonymous on Saturday, December 25, 1999 -
10:49 am:
LOVE LIFE

"Give all you can from love. Take all you can
from love. It is the most important thing while
you live in this life."

--Roberto Salvi, Roma.it (1917-1999)

By Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:40
am:
BRUNO: Da "Il Messaggero" Roma

Venerdì 18 Febbraio 2000 Il Papa chiede scusa per
Giordano Bruno. Ma ne condanna la dottrina
«Peccato il rogo, ma non lo riabilito»

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO - Il «profondo rammarico» della
Chiesa per il rogo che, 400 anni fa, arse vivo
Giordano Bruno, è stato espresso ieri, a nome del
Papa, dal cardinale Angelo Sodano in una lettera
ad un convegno organizzato a Napoli. Il filosofo
non viene riabilitato perché il suo pensiero
ritenuto «incompatibile» con la fede cristiana.
Non sono condannati i giudici ma le procedure
dell’Inquisizione perché «la verità non può essere
imposta con la forza».

http://www.ilmessaggero.it

========================================

By donata45 on Wednesday, February 16, 2000 -
05:49 am:

Faith and reason are parallels that can meet.

When so happens we feel our soul is free and

we begin to really live .

By michelle ikonomides on Saturday, January 29,
2000 - 04:18 pm:
we are as one another.

By Peter on Sunday, November 21, 1999 - 06:25 pm:
Can anyone overcome the "challenge the philosophy"
proposition at http://www.inexpressible.com ?!

Peter

FREE WILL:

We live in an interactive universe.
It is not only determinism, nor is it only free
will. Reality already determines for us our
existence, but it also determined for us our
identity, the freedom to be who we are as
conscious beings. These two interact, like
friends or foes. I choose my actions in reality,
and reality responds, to which I then can choose
to respond. But this would not be so if I were
not conscious. I choose this.

I like what Joseph Campbell* said about God: The
Unknowable Essence is One, only the sages have
given it many names.

*Professor at Columbia U, NYC, in comparative
religions.

********************************************
HYMN TO AMEN, 18th Dynasty Egypt, the ONE God.

Homage to thee, O Amen-Ra, Lord of Thebes, Thou
Boy, the ornament of the gods!.... Thou art the
King of all the gods. Thou art the great god,
the Living One.

Watch, being in peace! Thou watchest in peace.
Watch, Amen-Ra, Lord of the Throne of the Two
Lands, in Peace...
Thou art the Image of the Ka (or Double) of all
the gods, Image of Amen, Image of Atem.. who
gavest birth to men, who gavest birth to
everything, the Lord of life, thou Living One...

Thou didst exist first in the forms of the Eight
Gods (of Hermopolis), and then didst complete them
and become ONE.

[Hieroplyphic texts to Amen, translated by Sir
Ernest A. Wallis Budge, Keeper of the Egyptian and
Assyrian antiquities in the British Museum, 1923]

By Forum on Wednesday, May 3, 2000 - 07:55 pm:
By Jebel on Monday, May 1, 2000 - 10:04 pm:

NEW COVENANT:
(Inspired by the writings of Herbert Armstrong on
the new Kingdom of God.)

Rev.19 [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword
with which to smite the nations, and he will rule
them with a rod of iron;

http:/
/www.hti.umich.edu/relig/kjv/

(I believe the "rod of iron" is a standard which
is unchangeable, and from which all other measure
follows. It is the Law of laws, a Law of God, the
Mystery of the Ages.)


Heb.8 [10] This is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.


(I believe that this is what the Law of God is
about, a New Covenant for Earth's People.)


Jebel

6 BILLION

"There may be 6 billion people in the world, and
with them 6 billion religions, but there is only
One God."

--This aside came out during a Baha'i fireside in
Newport Beach, Calif., presided over by a
wonderful young speaker, Sarah T., who spoke on
education and spirituality in a modern,
atheistically and materialistically driven world,
where the separations of church and state are
sometimes taken to extremes, to the detriment of
the spiritual development of our society's young
people. A period of free discussion followed
where all present expressed their ideas. The
Baha'is believe that each new age brings about a
new revelation from God in the form of a
messenger, or prophet or manifestation, going back
to unknown times, and now starting with Zoroaster,
Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and
ending with Baha'u'allah, each representing a
progressive revelation to address the new
developments of civilization, as it is needed for
their time. In the current era, their
manifestation, Baha'u'allah, teaches unity for the
whole world, equality of men and women, universal
compulsory education, and the independent
investigation of truth, the oneness of God, world
peace, amongst others. This current Prophet would
then be followed by another in about one thousand
years.
It is my thought, however, that though a
progressive development of human ideas may
eventually lead to a hightened awareness and a
liberation of beliefs, even to where all human
beings on Earth may form in their hearts their own
version of God, the Unknowable Essence, in
relation to their identity, the Who they are in
God's universe, (see Habeas Mentem), it is
unlikely this idea of such spiritual freedom would
be endorsed by any of the world's present
religions. Since each seeks dominance for its own
version of God and His Kingdom on Earth, each thus
demands allegiance to that interpretation. Then,
is freedom of belief, or even New Age, with its
open ended explorations into the nature of belief,
still too new an idea for this civilization, since
it may actually represent a threat to the values
of current religions? The messengers may be many,
but there is only one God.

--Ivan

LOGIC OF AGREEMENT VS. COERCION / Or, the logical Ethics for a new secular mind of 'who' we are.

By Ivan Alexander


1. TOP-DOWN ETHICS

In "Burden of Dreams", the documentary film about the making of "Fitzcarraldo" in the Amazon jungle, filmmaker Werner Herzog says that the jungle is not full of joy and goodness, that this is an illusion. Instead, the beautiful sounds one hears are sounds of pain, of desperation, the screams only of survival, of eating and being eaten. There is no peace there, only constant war and killing. This is the reality of Life, or to paraphrase Herzog, there is no goodness in the wilderness, no paradise, and 'ethics' and the 'good' are human inventions which do not translate into nature. Nature is not good; it only 'is', to survive pain and death.

This caught my attention because I think it captures the reality of our human existence in a universe that merely 'is', in one that life merely 'survives', and that our human struggle to find meaning in an existence that stingily offers us some inner hope is born only of a desperation to survive death. Where is the 'joy' in this, the beauty? Is this not a fatalistic existence from which none of us will escape alive? What is this 'good' we strive for? If the function of life is merely to survive, how can there be an Ethics for moral action?

This question is of necessity a product of an advanced mind. There is something in the frontal lobes of my brain that requires I address this, and will not let me rest without an answer. I doubt our animal neighbors of the planet are much troubled by this, though they too may have good and bad dreams of their own. But their inner programming seems to have adapted well to the cruel existence of eating and being eaten which propels the living things of this world. They do not seem to display any moral judgements in their actions. They kill without remorse, and maybe die without regret, but selfless actions like sacrifice seem foreign to them. Existence as displayed by the surviving living species is inherently selfish; ethics is of no concern to them; moral ethics is a manmade thing.

Amongst the human species, Ethics has been a subject of debate for a very long time, possibly predating the written word. In our known recorded history, it already occupied the minds of ancient Egyptians, where in the presence of Osiris, after confessions of sins, the heart of the deceased was weighed against the weight of a feather; if it proved heavy with sin, it was eaten by a monster, thus destroying the dead man's soul so it could not enjoy paradise in the beauty of the gods. Though this was a fanciful and naive approach to Ethics, it persisted in various forms to this day in the ideas of heaven and hell. All religions of the world have some such version of what is closer to God, hence Ethical, or further from the Good, from God, and thus Evil. The ancient Greek thinkers further formalized these questions into philosophical ideas of Ethics in their search for 'what is the Good'. We have carried on this tradition to modern times, so the thinking of early Greeks, Anaximander, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, were later carried by the Church via St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, and are now still with us into the modern thoughts of Kant, Buber, De Chardin, Kung, Levinas, amongst many others; debates that have been faithfully recorded and carried on through the university systems, and their publications; and now this debate is carried still further into academia's most modern and democratic offspring as it continues on the internet. So we actively debate this still. But is it not strange, that after so many centuries of debate, millennia, we are still no closer to the truth of what is Ethics? What is the Good? Why has it proven to be so difficult, so illusive?

One possibility is that it simply is not true. There is no Good. If so, then all Ethics are a human invention with no reference to the reality of the universe as it is. This is what Herzog implied, that there is no God to which we can turn to. Nature is an evil place, not the embodiment of the good. The idea of nature as Good is a clever lie. Of course, a cleverly structured lie can never be deciphered and will leave the thinker perpetually off balance trying to understand truth where none exists. But this answer does not satisfy us and, except for die hard pragmatists or existentialists, it is quickly rejected as a philosophical dead end. Another possibility is that we are still wrestling with a template of reality we inherited from the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Zoroastrians, Hebrews, and even Greeks, whereby the universe is an imperfect, corrupt version of the perfection of God. And we are the imperfect and corrupt creations within it. Laboring under this moral template, we are then forced to build progressively greater and more complex systems of thought and structured embodiments of ethical behavior, rules of moral laws, that then dictate to us what is moral behavior, and what is not. This body of moral ethics is then embodied in our Holy Books and Scriptures. Man can never aspire, however, to approach the perfection of God, never get close enough to form that perfect union with the infinite which would allow him to become like God, and thus remain forever banished into the nether world of imperfection. Thus damned, man is forced to be punished by the morally correct laws representing our ideas of what is God's perfection, whenever we stray from this. So under this template, the one handed down to us from ancient times, we are never good enough to be Good, and never moral in our own right because we are damned with original sin, being imperfect-corrupt images of God. The only salvation, if we should accept this, is to be redeemed of this sin through some form of baptism of the holy spirit and accept our saviour, whether it be Christ or Mohammed, or Baha'u'allah, as our redeemer. This is the heavy 'top-down' structure of morality that fundamentally underlies much of the general and common thinking of the world today, that man is an impure creature that needs to be cleansed, or at least kept in check because he is wicked. For this structure of morality, great religions had been created to enforce the moral code, to reward or punish as the need may be, and to offer and even guarantee salvation for those who obey, or further damnation to hell for those who disobey. Interesting ideas, but they are fundamentally flawed themselves as self negating, since non can ever really interpret the perfection of God for us, and thus leave us no closer to understanding whether or not we are closer to the Good or not. This is a debate without end. It is not a dead end as in the prior case, but it is a debate without resolution since none can ever identify with logical certainty what is the Good. In the end, man does wicked and evil things, which is an historical fact, and a morality of Ethics does not seem to sway him to correct his ways. Man stays rebellious and refuses redemption, which is regrettable; or worse, he revels in his evil deeds. Why is this so? Why is this heavy moral 'top-down' structure so difficult to apply to the world?

In part, the answer to this question, it is because a super-structure of morality does not work. The Good, morally ethical behavior, is not something that can be imposed from above. Human beings are extremely complex creatures with a will, a mind, a soul, and even a little wickedness. We cannot help what we inherited from our lesser brethren. Ever watch monkeys steal? They grab and run, knowing full well they should not be doing this. I have seen monkeys do this from the rooftops of Agra, India. Would you believe I was 'mugged' by a baboon in Malaysia, who with bared teeth against my leg took my two oranges from my pocket? I have also seen it in my wolf-dogs, who habitually steal from each other, given the chance. Only I can 'morally' intervene to make sure that each gets a fair share, and not more. Does this make me their moral equivalent of a 'priest', I wonder, as I point my finger at them: "thou shalt not!..'? They slink away embarrassed with tail between legs when caught, and immediately beg for forgiveness. Sounds almost human? I suspect we are not yet so far removed, that we will not still deceive, steal, cleverly force where we can, and generally act in ways that we would judge to be amoral. There is a lack of awareness when it is convenient for us to forget what is morally good. This is our human nature with which we had been wrestling for these thousands of years. Yet, this is also our strength, the force that makes us be 'who we are' and who came to dominate the whole globe. Being morally good has not always been an asset, since we then are often destroyed; being morally bad has had its rewards in this world, but has not been an asset either, since in the end things fall apart. So where does salvation lie? How do we resolve the paradox that we cannot be totally good, nor totally bad?

* * *

2. ETHICS AS AGREEMENT VS. COERCION

The human reality is that men have been predators to one another, and thus we have ample historical evidence that man can do damage to others. A mild case of damage is infidelity, where trust is broken. An agreement of trust had existed, and now it is broken so the agreement that had existed no longer applies, and thus one or both parties are damaged and suffer. A more serious case of damage is entrapment or enslavement. Here a person is forced against their will, against their agreement, to become property, or subject to satisfying the needs of another. Again, if done through trickery, without ones agreement, then trust was broken, and now enslavement ensues. A still greater damage is violence, where a person is forced against their will with physical assault. Here, not only is trust and agreement broken, but the physical space occupied by the person is violated as well, since the fists, or whip or tire iron, used to beat the other is entering the victim's personal physical existence, his or her body. Of course, the ultimate damage is death, where all the agreements are broken, all the covenants of life disconnected, and the victim is killed. In each case, the operative word was 'broken agreement', where a person was forced against his or her will to serve the needs or passions of another. Implied in each broken agreement, by definition, was a 'coercion', whereby the perpetrator of this coercion was overstepping the boundaries of the person who was being victimized against their agreement. When a person forces another against their agreement, a coercion results. Why is this important? Is this 'agreement versus coercion' a logically valid Ethics question?

Each human being who is conscious and has a mind can form agreements. We naturally seek what is good for us, pleasing, pleasurable, fun, funny, satisfying, lovely, comforting, reassuring, exciting, safe, necessary, correct, dutiful, beautiful, etc. We are extremely complex as conscious human beings, and our agreements reflect that complexity. There is no simple formula for what is a 'good agreement'. It may be for mere survival, or it may be for pleasure, or esthetic beauty, or to satisfy a childhood wish, or some philosophical dream. We cannot define this, since it is as complex as the being who is seeking or accepting this agreement. But we can say that each agreement is how it is perceived as desirable by the person accepting the things agreed upon. So 'agreement' is a totally Subjective thing. For another to step into this and try to analyze it, or judge its merits, is to trespass onto that person, unless that person had first invited them to do so. So agreement is also voluntary, it is an expression of our free will. For better or worse, whether the agreements we make are smart or stupid, functional or dysfunctional, they reflect the 'who we are', our subjective selves. If this is a given, and our subjective selves are allowed to be who we are, then it is logical that an agreement is always a good, since it reaches over into both our lives as we agree, and into the life of another, as the other agrees. "Are we in agreement over this?" -- just testing-- The point is that an agreement between two people is a 'good' for them.

Now what happens when this agreement is violated? Above and beyond the examples of violations given above, there is also the violation of third parties. For example, I make an agreement with another to go into someone's house and steal. The agreement between us exists and satisfies 'our' needs, but it violates the agreement of another, the owner of the house who is to be robbed. Another example is that in joining my fraternity, I must submit to the agreement that I will 'haze' the initiates on hazing night. I must agree with this, if I am to remain a fraternity brother, and I must use the paddle on the rear ends of the pledges, since that is my agreement to be part of the fraternity. On the other end, the pledges agree to bare their bottoms and be slapped with the wooden paddles. All this abuse is agreed upon, which certainly is an abuse as observed by outsiders, but not at all an abuse by the participants who are part of the ritual. This template can be translated to families, companies, governments, social clubs, religious practices, etc. We can agree even to be abused; but it is 'our' agreement, and thus is valid. The only agreement that is not valid is where we agree to coerce another; then it is a coercion and devoid of this principle of agreement. So where is the good? The good exists wherever this network of agreements functions such that it does not trespass or coerce on another third party, and meets the needs of satisfying the persons who had entered into their mutually beneficial agreement. Then, there is no judgement, no morality involved. They do onto themselves as they agree, and what they then gain or lose is up to them, as it is assessed by their individual minds. It is not then for some greater structure to pass judgment on them, but rather they pass judgment on themselves. Either the agreement works, and they are happy with the results; or the agreement is a bust, and they end it unhappily. But what if one wants to end the agreement, and the other does not? That depends on how the agreement was drawn up in the first place: If I buy a house without contingencies, and find that termites had eaten all the interior walls, then I am stuck with a bad agreement; had I had contingencies, then the agreement would have become null and void. The point is that we control our agreements, and the more aware we are of that control, the more conscious we are of what the potential results of such agreement may be, the better is the agreement formed. But to refuse to release another from agreement, when it is not justifiable, not in the agreement that they may not do so, then that constitutes a coercion. So the balance is always between agreement and coercion. For the conscious mind, this is a very simple thing. For an unconscious mind, the agreement versus coercion function is difficult but not impossible to learn. The judgement then always rests with the persons who are in agreement, as to whether this agreement is a good or not, and the resolution of conflict, or forced disagreement, in effect of coercion, then falls on the moral equivalent of the social agreement, the Law.

Agreements exist all around us, all the time. We are creatures who find agreements instinctively. But because the Ethics of the past never clarified this for us, we had been living in a state of confusion that did not allow us to see clearly when we were being coerced. That is not to say that all agreements are Good; only that all agreements are the good we seek in making them. Whether they are then manifest into a good or not is not up to us, once the choices are made, but up to the reality which forms around those agreements. What manifests as a result of these agreements, the context within which they exist and materialize in reality, is then a judgment from reality. How we then respond to that reality based judgment then will lead us to conclude whether we have materialized a good or not. On the other hand, if coercion is forced upon us, we immediately know it is not a good, even if he who coerces may imagine that this coercions is 'for our own good'. When it is not something we voluntarily accepted, so what manifests around us from this coercion will be other than what we had chosen. Through coercion our free will is suspended, our ability to make conscious agreements is thrown into jeopardy, and when we finally break free and make agreements, they may already exist in a damaged state due to the prior coercions. In other words, whereas agreements manifest for us a reality condition for who we are, coercion manifests for us a reality condition for who we are not, or worse, they damage us. In the paternalistic relationships of Ethics based on ancient philosophy, none of this was made clear to us, so we lived in a perpetual state of confusion devoid of knowing when we were manifesting reality in relation to who we are, and when we were manifesting a reality in relation to who we are not. The two are radically different from one another. Agreements with reality exist all the time since we survive; but the Good of these agreements, by logical extension, is when they are made in the image of 'who we are'.

Agreements also exist by extension. When a social order had been validated by public voting in a fair and democratic process, then the resulting decision of the vote is a binding agreement on that population who participated in this democracy. That does not negate the protection of our individuals rights from coercion, but participants in this democratic process agree to abide but it. The same can be said of children as wards of their parents, legal guardians, responsible elders, social and educational institutions, etc. Because children are not yet of an age, in many cases, where agreements can be sought and abided by, then the responsibility falls on those who are responsible for them. This does not give them the right to abuse the children, or handicapped persons, or mentally challenged wards (or even pets, or wild animals, or animal husbandry); rather it puts the responsibility of agreement on those whose minds are mature enough, and evolved enough, to be able to make binding agreements. Even if the agreements are not formalized by contract, rather informal as no more than a 'given word' or 'hand shake' or merely an understanding; it is an agreement if both parties understood it this way. To then violate that agreement is a coercion, which then throws confusion into the agreement, and manifests the unhappiness of beings forced against their will. So this is always so, a balance between choices made in agreement as opposed to choices resulting from failed agreement, or forced dis-agreement, namely coercion. By extension, this principle then applies to members of groups, corporations, fraternities, clubs, educational institutions, military service, condominiums, etc. where the original agreement to join and abide by the rules of the organization then subjects the members to the agreements and rules of the group. So, unless someone disagrees with the group so strongly as to quit the group, their agreement is to abide by the laws and bylaws of the organization. Of course, under no circumstances can a group activate agreements that force others against their agreement, that coerce, except in the event to stop coercion. The police, military, legal and tax systems, all have the power to coerce; however, in a just and legal system, they may coerce only to enforce agreement or to prevent or stop coercion.

Why is all this important? It is important because it dispenses with the heavy 'top-down' moral structure of prior thinking on Ethics. The moral equivalent of the Good is reduced simply to Agreement; the philosophical enforcement of that Good is then no more than the enforcement of allowing the freedom to find agreement and being protected from coercion. Rather than a top-down morality, instead we have here a democratic process where each individual finds his or her right course of action in agreement with others, and is both free from coercion and is forbidden from coercing. Then each person is free to find their own happiness as it agrees with them to do so, and as it is found in agreement with others who are happy to share in this. This is a very uncomplicated Ethics for the new modern mind of man. But it comes with a 'caveat': this 'bottom-up' Ethics of Agreement works only for conscious minds.

* * *

3. ETHICS AS CONSCIOUSNESS

So here is the fundamental question of Ethics: If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?

Nature has proven to be brutal, and coercion is a chronic state of affairs. However, even in nature there is reprieve where in between attacks and suffering there are moments of comfort and joy. When the kill is being eaten, when there is sleep afterwards to aid in digestion, when there is sex, nursing offsprings, or play with others for its own sake; these are all moments of an animal's time to enjoy its existence. Within the totality of experiences that define the animal's existence, these are moments of happiness. So instead of the apparent coercions that haunt an animal life, there is agreement; but then it is not between conscious minds, but rather between a subjective mind, the animal's, and its totality existence within which it survives. When these are in agreement, life goes on and procreates; when in disagreement, life perishes.

In human society, a similar principle is at work. We appear to be coercing one another all the time, with little agreement sought and, when asked for, rarely found. But that is the surface of appearances; underneath all manners of agreements are being formed, often unconsciously, tacitly, that make our society work. Same as in the animal world, agreement exacts a high price: either we survive, or we perish. For example, to disagree with the captain of a vessel tossed at sea in a storm is a peril to all aboard, there is no room for disagreement, and thus all fall-in tacitly to survive. In general, this is how unconscious agreements work, we fall into agreement to survive. However, in the new mind, there is a level of consciousness that questions and demands the freedom to pursue its own way. This is a function of awareness, so not all will share in this need equally, and rather than tacitly accepting an agreement given to us, conscious minds seek out agreement in advance. This requires forethought and a level of awareness to make this forethought possible. A more conscious mind is aware of its actions, of its agreements, and is usually aware of what to expect as a result of these actions and agreements. Where the question of Ethics fails here is that a conscious mind will use forethought not to seek agreement, but rather it will use its conscious choices to cleverly coerce others. And this is the ethical dilemma here: How do we prevent conscious minds from using their skills of awareness to 'not coerce', but to seek agreement instead.

The answer to this ethical dilemma lies, I believe, in the level of consciousness of the person who is to seek or break agreement. A simple mind, childlike, even animal like, can see the quick gain to be had from a coercions: Why ask when you can take? A more conscious mind will see that to ask but not force is a path to agreement, and then can bind that agreement formally so that both parties can be secure in their trust of one another. But a most advance mind, one that has an awareness which surpasses these, sees an agreement as still more: Not only do not force the reality of another, but serve and forgive when the other fails to do the same. This is a tremendous leap forward in human consciousness: to love one another, or do onto others as you would have done onto you. Because there is no perfection in the Earthly totality of human existence, to seek agreement without force, and then forgive in a spirit of service where that failed is to heal; and that is the mark of a very advanced mind. Thus, such a level of consciousness is most well suited, even necessary, to manifest our social reality into the Good. It is this third level of consciousness, still so illusive for us, that I call the 'new Mind'. And it is this new mind that best understands this statement:

The best defense against coercions for humankind is the awareness that it exists, and then convert coercion into an agreement instead.

Alas, this is still in the future, for we have not yet completely evolved above the first step: We must first ask and not force. This is not a judgment, and I believe that humankind can and will rise above this ethical dilemma. All it takes is consciousness.

* * *

4. IS ETHICS MANMADE?

Therefore, we come to the final question of Ethics regarding finding agreement as a primary principle of the Good: Is Ethics a manmade thing? Is it the function of man's total body of thought, or is it the function of a body of thought greater than that? How big is the totality that guides our human actions and consciousness into achieving a planetwide 'social agreement' that validates the 'law of agreements'?

We can understand totality at various levels, such as of force, where great pressure is applied on a given point. We can also understand totality of understanding, where all ideas are assembled into a cohesive whole that makes sense as that whole, as in philosophy. We can also understand the totality of humankind's understanding, all the philosophies and sciences as knowledge and principles that guide our lives, our belief systems, even if we are but dimly aware of them. And finally, we can understand the totality of human activity, what is our social order, our planetwide human reality. From each totality is some guiding principle that is identifiable to us. For example, the totality of force is a sum-total; the totality of understanding is a synthesis-total; the totality of human social interaction is a guiding principle of Ethics-total. All contribute to man's existence totality. But the final totality, the one that defines for us our human condition on this world is one that transcends human understanding, since it jumps over the total knowledge and understanding of human awareness and off into the cosmos of the reality that had assembled into what we call Existence. That totality is beyond the human mind, beyond our consciousness, and yet it is still in "agreement' with us because we survive, do not perish, and even thrive within it. This is the totality that has assembled within itself the greatest dimensions we can imagine, what we will call the Infinity-total.

Why should this be important? It is important because we are still left the question asked earlier:

"If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?"

Until we can resolve this question, then the validity of an 'Ethics of Agreements' is still in doubt. If Ethics is a thing only manmade, then from what can it hope to gain validation as a Truth? From what source of divine knowledge or principle-totality can it draw its strength as a law for humankind?

Humanity has labored under these Totality-Principles for a long time now. We have had the totality of law, which guides us in what we may or may not do as social beings. We have the totality of religious teachings and scriptures which, through example and metaphor, act as an interpretation of what is God for humankind. And in the spirit of philosophy, we have had the totality of human thought assembled into a total body-philosophic from which we gain reason and understanding of the human condition. All these encompass totalities that comprise our sense of the ethical. Now, if we fail to comply within any such totality, whereby individually we break the rules or laws or spirit of ethical behavior, then from each such totality comes a judgment, and even a punishment. However, in each case, this is a manmade thing, where some human authority will condemn the unethical behavior and seek to correct it. But if each of these totalities is a lesser totality, in terms of the 'Infinity-totality mentioned', and they have the power to punish or coerce, then what should we expect from the greatest totality, the universal-infinity-totality as a corrective action?

The answer lies in what manifests from our actions. If reality 'accepts' our action, in effect the infinity-totality 'agrees' with what it is we do, then what will materialize within the vicinity of our being, our personal reality within which we exist, will match that what we had expected from our agreement. For example, at a very simple level, let us say we agree to move a large boulder and put our collective backs into it. If the boulder moves as expected, then reality has validated that agreement; if it fails to move, then the validation for the agreement is not there. On a more sophisticated level, taking it to the most complex human interactions, if we agree to barter and exchange and from this is created a successful economic reality, then reality accepts these agreements; if the economic reality is failing or crashes, then reality has failed to endorse these agreements as they are. The interrelationships that manifest from human activity as they relate to one another are immeasurable; the interrelationships that result from how our human activities thus affect reality, both the universal reality of matter within which we exist and the human reality of being within which we are conscious; all these are a function of the interrelated-totality from which materializes results. The results of each of our agreements, or coercions, are a function of the greatest possible reality-totality: Existence. For each action we do, or agree to do, manifests a response from the Infinity-totality as to how it will manifest a response within the vicinity of our being. Then, whether or not we are conscious of this, whether or not the mind wants to accept of reject the outcome, the result 'is' as reality has made it. This is not a 'judgement' but merely a 'reality' of what manifests in response to human action.

In conclusion, the final arbiter of reality is the universe within which we exist; it is the ultimate Totality to which we answer. We do not answer with fear of 'punishment', rather with awareness of what we can expect to have manifested in our personal existence from this Totality. If all lesser manmade totalities are interrelated into bodies of thought and conscious understanding, then what is this interrelated Totality? Is it a conscious Thought? Is an Infinite-Totality God? The answer I give is that: it does not matter. What matters is whether or not what we do through agreement, as opposed to coercion, manifests for us a desired reality in response. If so, then our agreements of human action are validated by that Infinity-Totality. And if it is validated by the greatest possible totality of existence, then is this not a Good? It would seem that there is not need to judge it as good or evil, for what manifests merely is. However, as in the Amazon jungle where Herzog lamented the absence of goodness in the wilderness, there is no guarantee that all of our actions will yield joy and desired rewards. Life can be brutal and filled with pain, injustices at levels over which we have no control; yet, this is the human condition that calls upon us to find agreements to correct the pain, the injustice. We are the creatures of the wild endowed with conscious minds, and on our shoulders falls the responsibility to improve our condition. And when we do this, when we can overcome nature's pain and killing, and instead replace it with joy and kindness, with love and beauty, are we not achieving a Good?

I say that human interaction by agreement is the ultimate Good.

In the end, I propose that the Ethics as described above is an infinitely designed Good, not manmade but of its own 'interrelated' construction, and that for humankind to build upon the foundations of a social contract validating agreements, and opposed to coercions, will introduce into the human reality a new level of justice, goodwill, and happiness, of a Good and a new Mind, which we had yet never experienced.


END

Hello,

Thank you for giving me your time. I'm about to tell you some things that will take the center of your life into a scary, dangerous,
but wondrous realm. Whether you merely consider what I'm about to say, or act on it, your life is going to change in the next 5 minutes.

Sorry about the dramatics, but what else can happen when you take your deepest, most untouchable beliefs, and turn them upside down?

What will you find beneath them?

*** God, the Church and You. ***

Our lives are profoundly based on the notion of an ever-seeing, ever-loving God, and a single nemesis, the Devil, who rules a kingdom
of everlasting, inescapable pain. The Bible draws a very clear line between good and evil. And we all know the bible stories, and celebrate the psalms. When life is good, we thank God. This belief in a loving god, and a trustworthy father-figure of priests, mullahs, elders, and the sanctity of the holy word gives us great comfort, structure, expectation of a bright future and afterlife. It is our shield against chaos.

But the Bible doesn't make sense. When bad things happen, it's your fault, it's the work of the Devil, it's fate, it's kharma or retribution, or nature. When tragedy occurs, God moves in mysterious ways. Keep asking questions, and soon a priest will hint to you that you are on your way to hell. Imagine that, the God who loves us throws some of us irredeemably into Hell. Yet we watch the news. The Church
we trust with our very salvation and soul is every bit as corrupt, venal, cynical. Preachers steal. Preachers rape children. The Christian Brothers in England kidnapped 10,000 children and shipped them off to Australia for a life of slavery, packing them off with the cruel lie that their mothers have died. People who are religious commit every crime as the most immoral. Preachers preach hatred and violence towards people they don't like. Blindminded zealots murder, rape, torture whoever their preachers, or mullahs point at.

The Church is mercenary, protecting evil people, supporting cruel dictatorships, growing rich while their parishes live in poverty.

We are unsatisfied with explanations, we cast a blind eye to the evils in our religions, afraid to voice them in fear of eternal damnation.

What is truth? What is a lie? It seems easier to go along with the flow than it is to challenge an all-seeing, all-knowing God who we cannot see.

If you didn't have Hell hanging over your head, you might conclude that it's all wrong, everything's wrong. But you can't.

That's the beauty of the Bible. A great fraud.

If you want to see the true nature of our relationship with God, it's right in front of us. The next time you pass a flock of sheep, you got it. We're slaves, complacently munching grass and following our shepherds, who fleece us of our coats, take our milk, and when it's time, lead us to slaughter. We are slaves. God doesn't love us, god uses us. Controlling each and every one of our lives.

*** The Gods ***

All of this difficult to believe with a single, loving god. But what if the bible's lying? What if in reality, there's more than
one god. What if, in reality, there are more gods than grains of sand on a beach? Then, everything changes.

*** What's the truth? Maybe it's this... ***

- There's not one all-seeing God and one evil Antigod. There are many Gods.
- We are not the children of God. We are their cattle. We are slaves, and they feed off us. They are ruthless, cruel, greedy, venal, vengeful, whimsical. They do not love us. They need us. They fear us.
- We are not controlled by the Gods, we are manipulated. All of us, in very subtle ways. One way or another, all our major decisions have
been made for us.
- If you are doing what they want, doors open, the way is always clear. If you try to do what they don't want, everything goes wrong.
- They are invisible, but their manipulations are real, and measurable.
- If you're living a charmed life, they can turn on you. If they decide, your life can be a never-ending wreckage, no matter what you do, in spite of positive attitude, responsibility, intelligence, hard work.
- Invisibility is their main strength. They created the bible to keep us from becoming aware of them.

Don't just take my word for it. Take a long, hard look at your life. Look for the following patterns...

- The Sinking Ship. Have you ever seen a disaster coming into your life, and do the right things, the smart things, yet somehow, in the
end, find yourself on that sinking ship?
- The last step. Have you ever labored through 9 steps towards your goal, only to have everything laid to waste at the very last minute?
- Have you ever tried to accomplish something, but failed because of 3 or 4 unrelated, inexplicable, improbable things happened one after the other?
- Have you ever experienced a tragedy that could have been prevented if one of 3 or 4 unrelated things happen, yet, improbably didn't?
- Have bad things ever persisted, no matter what you've tried to do? Do bad things stick to you, and good things stay away?
- When in a pinch, have you ever found that nobody could help you? Or that anybody who could've helped you were nowhere to be found?
- When things went wrong, have plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D, plan E..... failed, because someone, or something you needed let you down?
- Have you ever been betrayed by someone inexplicably, someone who could've easily helped you?

If these things happen to you, does it begin to make sense? If it does, congratulations, you've just realized you're a slave, and that perhaps your entire life was a lie. But don't despair yet. You can fight back.

How??? They have all the power don't they? They're invisible? Nobody can help me, nobody would ever believe me!

It's simple. If they manipulate you to do one thing, do another. It could be as mundane as walking on the other side of the street,
changing your plans at the last minute. Watch for the patterns, and you will have a pretty fair idea what's about to happen. The hard part, is giving up a lifetime of belief.

For how can you believe in one god when you know there are many, or the love of god when you see what the Gods do to you, and to the people you
love. How can you believe in a Church that's every bit capable of doing evil as a Hitler or a Stalin? How can you believe in a Bible that tells you to believe blindly what certain people say, and not to challenge anything because you'll burn in torment forever? It has to go. All of it.

And if you're scared, and life becomes suddenly bleak, take heart... you've entered a greater world, and that world has always been yours.

It's been invaded by things that brings darkness to this world. Don't trust in God for your happiness, or a good life for your children. God
doesn't care about your happiness. Don't trust in the bible, or your church. They're caretakers of a 3,000 year old slavery. Light doesn't come from above, it comes from within you.

Maybe your journey begins here. It's not going to be easy to walk a blind path without a compass. Listen within yourself, and take your
own steps into the future. Fight the Gods for your freedom.

Thank you for your time.

Dear A.,

Thank you for the valuable five minutes! Welcome.

You might also look at what had been written under the thread "Is there a Theory of Everything". http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-newmessages.cgi?method=last&number=7&units=1440&tree=ON&where=all

The Light is everywhere!

Ivan