| Suburbanite - I hear where you are coming from, we now have a President who is making national war policy because he got his idea from out of the blue and has claimed it as the authority in his opinion this is how god wants it to be.
That is how religions operate as far as I can see. If you are correct that religion is not based on facts as revealed then you might as well say all religions are based on "dream cookies" such as Starboy has suggested (hope he does not mind my interpretation of his opinion).
You will have a difficult time demonstrating that religion is based on facts to prove that my "dream cookie influence" is not the fact, without standing in conflict with your objective (that part is my opinion only).
Or perhaps I should not use my own visionary rescource to claim that all religions were founded from such a source?
In so doing I have expanded the orbits of objectivity to a new level of reasoning. Take note that the implications of my message contains more then it appears to present on a lower level of alternative thinking.
What consitutes a fact? You stated that opinions, even if held by a lot of people or by the so-called experts, is not proof that the fact is really a fact. So what is the true standard?
Allow me to explain how I seperated what I call the facts from personal opinion.
The idea came into my head from (I know not where - just from out of the blue). I reported that idea directly without adding any personal interpretation about it, and without forming a personal opinion if the idea is right or wrong. It stated it as I got saw it in my mind when it first arrived, in effect gave brith to it with my posting of it, that child is on it's own, my mind was just the virgin mother of it's conception. It came through me but is not of me.
Those are the facts as stated by the vision, others can accept or reject those facts, or hold opinons about it, or brun it at the stake, or hang it up to dry on a cross, or use it for attainting a better understanding about why women do not have leading roles in our religions.
Now about the continueance today for those rituals, I do not think that modern Christian religions still use wine to get visions from the wine spirits that are unsealed from their tombs in the underground wine cellers. I do not think that most modern religions employ the use of mushrooms, pot, or other Wicca brews as portals for so-called other dimensional visionary landscapes. Those days are behind us.
Once Timothy Leary attempted to form a new religion where he wanted to claim that LSD was a sacred substance just like the Christians claim wine can be used for their rituals. The Supreme Court (or some lower court?) tossed it out and stated he could not create a new religion to make lawful and unlawfull drug. (gaining protection under the right to worship as we please ). The court stated that only a substance with a long term history of usage by an established religion that has been around for a long time can be protected by the Bill of Rights.
Needless to say he had no facts that could support the idea that LSD (a fairly new designer drug) could meet that standard.
(Tobacco however could be debated on those consitutional grounds if they try to totally outlaw it). During the prohibition of booze the Catholic Church was permitted to harvest grapes and to use wine in their church rituals, even giving to minors.
Now they have adopted a new interpretation called "use in moderation" which would prevent any drunken visions from happening - not the case during the times of Noah - etc.
Next time I post I wil add more info about this topic.
Technosoul. |