Male Dominated Religion.

[Technosoul]

Some women are unhappy because most Western religions and in fact religion in general seems to be male dominated and controlled, which ended up pushing women down into subserveant roles.

But what is overlooked is that religions started off because of visions effected by what Staryboy would call "dream cookies" - aka mind altering substances (drugs) used during religious vision quests. Those brews, smokes, and mushrooms would cause a vision and that vision then became the foundation for religious concepts.

It was soon discovered by the pre-historic shamans that those "drugs" could have negative effects relative to child birthing, just like our modern research has indicated, which was not a problem for male users. So the women simply stopped taking part in those religious rituals. The men continued getting high so they could get a revelation and the women stayed low and did other more constructive things like "working".

After hundreds of generations passed, everyone forgot about the root reasons why men dominate leading roles in religion, and it's adaptation as a government.

I cannot post any linkpages about this because the idea came to me via remote viewing out of the Blue. But I could come up with web links about the use of such substances in pre-historic religion if so requested.

So, those are the facts.

Technosoul.

[Suburbanite]

Hardly the 'facts'

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Hardly the 'facts'

Just saying my facts are wrong and then leaving it hanging at that is hardly much of a repley.

Perhaps you can do better next time?

Read the Etiquette link provided above for reasons why I said that.

Technosoul.

[The Dunedan]

Techno;
You just posited as fact something which came to you through "remote viewing." In other words, you saw/felt/precieved this while in an altered state of mind and have offered and will offer no other proof; nothing from history, anthropology, archeology, or any other science. You have not even managed to provide an Aquinean proof for the existance of your "Remote viewing," simply insisted that it exists. You, sir, are simply off the blotty, 'round the bend, and out of your head.
You're expecting us to believe you based upon your uncorroborated assertion which is itself based upon what might be an acid-trip for all we know. You havn't even got your terms correct: "Remote viewing" refers to the alleged ability to see what is going on IN THE PRESENT but in another location. It has nothing to do with visions of the past.

Do you just habitually get stoned off your gourd before you make religious posts? In the past you've tried to posit that Jesus used "Wicca magic" to raise Lazarus from the dead, that the Celts didn't practice human sacrifice, and that you've had intimate communication with the spirit of an Indian shaman who's been dead for 1,000 years. You've insisted that all "Nature based" religions ( which seems to you to mean anything non-Abrahamic ) are essentially the same: a concept which my Hindu, Wiccan, Native American and Asatru friends find rediculous at best. Put down the Carlos Castanada, do some real research, sober up, and then resume discussion.

Butterface this thing.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, Hardly the 'facts'

Just saying my facts are wrong and then leaving it hanging at that is hardly much of a repley.

Perhaps you can do better next time?

Read the Etiquette link provided above for reasons why I said that.

Technosoul.[/b][/quote]

You're just randomly asserting things about 'prehistory' which is only assumable. There is no bases for anything you said but assumption, no fact involved.

[Technosoul]

This is a religious forum or one used for philosophy - not a forum for your science facts. They have another forum for science people.

In the field of religion and/or philosophy (we) get our facts from "out of the blue". AKA - revelations, insights, visions, and mental states altered by our higher consciousness. What did you expect? This is not a forum about agreed upon historical data that some dig produced. It IS a forum about religious belief systems and the facts downloaded from that system of empowerment. I am not saying you do not have a valid claim to your viewpoint, but you just are in the wrong forum to expect conformity for your pre-established opinions.

Imagination and concentration, mixed with logical philosophy, can and does generate the next so-called reality that you will be subjected to adopting. But do not put the horse before the wagon, proof follows the horse power of the imagination.
Proof is just the wagon in tow, not the cutting edge momentum.

Example: Albert E got his theory of relativity from "out of the blue" and he said so. His mind had the odd ability to download new ideas from that anonymous place of higher knowing. And then he did the math and demonstrated a logical philosophy for his theorys (which he did not learn about from reading books). That is real religion in full operation.
But he was a little wacko and forgot to tie his shoelaces, but so what, what is wrong with being wacko if it generates better facts and knowledge for the rest of you to study?

Remote viewing is simply seeing something at a distance but seeing it here and now via normal brain potentials. Now I know about the failed attempt of the CIA to use remote viewing to spy on an enemy, and they concentrated their experiment only on finding out what was happening in the present in other nations - and they were not interested in the past. Then some jerk wanted to make money by selling this machine and a program that reportivily would teach people how to remote view by developing their mental ESP potential. A bunch of crock if you ask me, and I do not advocate those ideas nor did I use that term to indicate any connection to those people.

If you are not interested in chatting about real spiritual, religious, or philosophy concepts, then why do you bother to come into such a forum that is set up for that purpose? Just go talk science facts at the science forum. You cannot just Butterface religion because you do not like our factural resources or how we know what we know.

You might be correct to fight a war upon the spiritual belief systems but this is the wrong time and place for that war. We still have that freedom and scientific fundamentalism is not yet the superpower of some master race.

That is my logical philosophy and those are indeed the facts.

The other information you stated about my former remarks are deceptive, because I did not assert all those remarks as bieng facts in those other postings. I was just presenting avenues for alternaitve thought, which was a different objective and purpose (and sometimes I joke around) - so don't mix the apples in with the oranges and call it the same thing (Just a recomendation not a hard fast rule).

I did state facts however.

Is it not a known fact that certain drugs can effect child birth in a negative way which would mean that women should not use them? And is it not a known factor that religions in their formitive years used a number of different kinds of mind alternating plants to gain their visions which in return resulted in concepts about other-dimensional hells (bummer trips) and heavens ( getting high)? Take for example the use of wine in modern religious rituals, is wine not a mind alternating substance? Does not your local store shelf the wine under a sign reading "spirits" - that name did not just pop up without some historical background. Did you never hear the old saying from Italy that "wine brings truth to the lips"? Such sayings have their roots.

If you do not like my facts, instead of attacking my sources, try to attack the actual data I presented with your "real facts" that you imagine you have, which I doubt you could have, and then we can debate it fact for fact.

Technosoul.

[Suburbanite]

What the hell are you talking about. Facts are facts, nothing you said was a fact, end of story.

[Technosoul]

Basically what you wish to debate is what would consitute something as being a fact.

And no doubt what the source of a fact mgiht be plays a role.

You stated an opinion as a fact but did not provide any estabished authority for that opinion that I am wrong or that my facts conflict with some better documented theory that sounds more logical.

What makes your peronsal opinion the last word (end of story)?

But it might be true in your case, your story has ended because you never could get past chapter one with your emotional attack. So I will await in-put for anyone else interested.

What do you mean by "randomly inserting things in history"? I do not think we have any history books about those fomulative years of religion where the writer did not make assumptions.

I personally have complete confidence in my resources, but the topic is not trying to make you believe in that source. So you are addressing the wrong topic at hand. What you must address for a sensible debate is the logic of what I reported, does what I said about why males dominate religion sound logical and higly possible, or not?

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Guide -

Who - what - where - when - why.

[Suburbanite]

All I am saying is that what you said is not a fact. There is no fact in it, it is an opinion. And just because 500 other people share an opinion, or 20 important people share it, it is still an opinion. I'm not saying the drug part is wrong, but you're taking some tribal concept that everyone did drugs, which is not provable, and them assuming its affects and their continuance today.

“What makes your peronsal opinion the last word (end of story)?”

I didn’t state an opinion. I don’t know if you are right or wrong, but I do know that what you said is not a fact, and you said that they were at least twice now.

[Technosoul]

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.

[Technosoul]

Continued...
Now let us say that a anicent tribe in Africa had added mind-expanding mushrooms to their diet and had experienced drug induced visions about heavens and hells (and other things) which resulted in an early type religion. They could not see the microscopic pores and so could not plant and harvest the mushroom and depended on finding them in the open African fields, and noticed that they grew in the damp dung of cattle, which were wild at that time, and so they assumed that their sacred mushrooms were a gift from the cow, that resulted in them protecting cows and learning about herding, which advanced the knowledge of the tribes involved. Even today in Inidia the cow is thought of as a sacred animal to be protected but they no longer recall why. Anyway after generations of doing that ritual the process became part of the gentic make up of the human race and the visionary ablity was passed on as part of the gene pool, so that after time people would no longer need magic plants to experience their newly manifested imagination which became the evoultionary effect of that orignal cause - the religious vision quest.

And then the race moved northward (etc) into India and the middle east where such mushrooms were no longer part of the new environment and so they over time forgot about such useage. None the less they did maintian and continue the rituals of seeking visions for religious purposes.

Nowadays it is not uncommon for a new idea to pop into a persons mind or to formulate in their imagination. Those ideas have resulted in a number of inventions and concepts which have been the guiding factor for human progress and culture.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Technosoul, 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.

wow, that sure was out of left field

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, 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.

wow, that sure was out of left field[/b][/quote]

Out of left field, out of the blue, whatever.

We can alway expect the unexpected when we deal with visionary types of people such as the role I have assumed in this particular debate, and I can connect those "dots" to include anyone (especially a leader with a vision) as part of my explainations.

Athough this is a bit of a detour from the topic let us look a Bush's visionary concept for the wrold, which he told a reporter during the last persidental debate "that is how god (aka the Blue) would want it.

His vision is that if every person on earth was free and had a democratic governments where they felt they have a voice in what was happening to them or OF them, then that would ease any reason to protest or to become a terrorist. Idealistically he could be absolutly right, those might be the facts. Even if realistically such an agenda or goal would be nearly impossible to put into effect and especailly if done by force through premptive stikes and military agression. None the less, it still might be a fact that if the world was free and everyone had some power to create a world cultue based on the choices of our collective and local abilities to vote, then the "voiceless" ones would not have to get violent to demand those changes that could take place by voting for changes.
Assuming everyone concerned would respect the will of the popular vote,.

But where did President Bush get his facts that his vision is in fact a workable solution in the war on terrorism? Can he pull up a linkpage for Congress so they can check out a world where such a fact is already in effect? Nope. Can he demonstrate why his locgic is realistic or that it makes sense in light of how the world systems now operate? Nope.
Yet, he makes that statement out of left field and presents it as a fact and as a worth while vision for our national policy.

It has been done before, when Kennedy made his vision of sending a man to the moon a national policy and goal. We did it, and science had to come up with the pathway for makeing that dream a reality. And he did not have all the facts that it was possible, only his faith in that vision that came to him from out of the blue ... er, left field.

Now look back at George Washington and the visionary minds who created our Consitution and government. Where did they get their facts that it would work? All the rest of the world had Kings and Queens, dictators or Popes. But they came up with a radical new idea for government and had nothing in the way of another government with a simular concept upon which to base or support their theory with. Where did the writers of the constitution get their ideas if they were not based on known and workable examples from the past realities? Where did they find those "self evident truths" which became the appointed facts for our system of thinking?

[argonak]

But they came up with a radical new idea for government and had nothing in the way of another government with a simular concept upon which to base or support their theory with.

You are apparently unfamiliar with greek and roman history.

Ours is by far the first republic, while it did include a lot of good modifications, the basic concept is pretty old. They even used a lot of greco-roman architecture in Washington D.C. to help connect us with the ancient ideas.

[Technosoul]

I am aware of the Greek-Roman types of governmental structuring and that of Babylon which did influence some of the thinking for our Republic, but you are picking the quote selected out of context, surely those were not workable governments that survived the test of time, they all failed and were replaced. And so the American forefathers did not have any historical proof that their ideas should be used, and I do not think those governments really had the same kind of Bill of Rights or Constitution even if they had a three or four party structure. In my limited knowledge about it.