Hi Insanity is a lie,
You rock! Just cheering from the bleachers here. Oooh Whey Oooh, Whey Ooooh-oooh!!
I am, though, curious about your monicker. I teach adolescents with severe neurological disorders (any guesses which one in particular?). I might totally be able to relate, but don’t know for sure. Crap. I’m revealing my personae again. I’m inexcuseable. Ex-catholic guilt complexes are infathomable. Keep the faith, NoelG! No, really… there’s an abyss out there…
Hi Oughtist,
Believe it or not, I am not actually a Catholic … yet. I’m still technically a Lutheran, but I’m in the conversion process. Just a bit of random trivia for you 
you really layed it out clearly didn’t you 
I used to be Christian and believe in jesus… for a time i was a “born again Christian”, basically meaning i had accepted Jesus openly as my personal savior, and by doing so i assured entry into the Christian heaven.
When i first read the bible (only the first testament) i couldn’t get over the fact that it was nothing more than a run on story teaching and simply creating a set of morals and in essence, rules to live by, out f thin air.
Do you believe in Adam and eve?
If so, how did 2 people found a race?
When moses went up on the mountain and received gods laws, can you trust that they are actually divine laws, sent from god?
It is said that if you do not adhere to those laws, you go to hell…
So in the tens of thousands of years before Christianity, and for all the people in the world who aren’t Christian, what chance do they have of entering heaven? are they just a part of gods scenery?
What of the countless religions, present and past, are they all meaningless?
When i was a boy i thought to myself that if so many people believe in god (the Christian god), they cannot be wrong. But when i found out why people believe in god, i began to think it was for something other than ultimate truth.
The rules to live by are fairly useful. if many people adhere to them then society can become cohesive and functional, so in essence the reason why Christianity is successful is because it organizes its people in an intelligent manner. it tells people not to murder, to only start successful families, to be fair, and a few other useful things.
There was once a religion called “the quakers” who originated in a very poor england. One of their beliefs was that having any sex at all was wrong, and in their over populated poor lifestyle in england, you were better off with no kids, so the quakers flourished. But when the quakers moved to America, they suddenly found that their only source of new members (an overpopulation of poor people) was utterly gone…
needless to say they died out. quite recently the very last quaker family died out…
Islam is quite similar to Christianity except that it is more aggressive toward non-believers. The reason why Islam is successful is because it organizes its people to literally dominate others, destroying competition and assuring the future of Islam.
Religion functions largely as a social installation, an institution which helps the society be successful by training the population to be cohesive.
So when I think about Jesus, i don’t deny the possibility that he exists, or even that he was god (though i hold that to be extremely unlikely). I’m not sure if Jesus was one man, ten men, an entire group, or a social movement. If he did exist then i would say that he was probably very charismatic, intelligent and a visionary, but would i say he could perform miracles? history has been known to embellish tales of victory…
Would i say he is a prophet? probably not, because one profit showing up late in the existence for the human race and creating what we know as “Christianity” is simply not something i think god would arrange for… but i think we all have our own idea of what god is…
hope i didn’t bore ya
First, I’ll say “thanks” for the compliment: “thanks”. I’d also like to say that you’re really good too and I very much enjoy reading your posts.
Well, after looking up the word “moniker” on dictionary.com 
to make sure it means what I thought it meant- I’m ready to answer:
I’m a 16 year old, vegetarian, liberal, attending/following no church, conspiracy theorist, radical-political song writing man from a small town in a red state that most of the population can best be described as, to use the words of Todd Snider: “Conservative Christian right wing Republican straight white American male” (except of course that half of the population is female).
To those around me, much of what I say and believe, politically and morally, are considered insane by those around me.
Those details, combined with my love of mysterious sounding monikers on online forums, gave rise to my name “Insanity Is A Lie”
You believe the doctrine of the Catholic faith. You no longer believe the doctrine of Lutheranism. How, then, can you say that you are not Catholic but still Lutheran? Does the Catholic church have some kind of purification process you have to go through before they allow you to call yourself Catholic? That sounds a bit like a cult to me.
Of course, I wouldn’t take my opinion very seriously- I don’t like ANY organized religion. It’s my belief that any powerful organization with an advanced hierarchy will almost certainly have a significant amount of corruption. As far as popes go though, the current pope seems ok. I do appreciate that his first act as pope was traveling to all the areas that had reports of Catholic preists molesting children and putting a stop to that. I think that was a great presence. He has made some comments (I think they were made by him not the last pope) talking about how atheism has cause the worst crimes ever committed against humanity- which is hypocritical coming from the organization that perpetrated the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. That IS to be expected though- it’s his job as the pope to make people hate atheism.
You came far from boring me- I quite enjoyed your post. However, there is one thing I must dispute:
From what I’ve heard (from a Muslim preacher), Muslims believe people of other religions, who are devoted to God, can meet them in paradise. So do Jews. Christianity is the most unforgiving religion in the world (in my opinion).
I don’t doubt that there were prophets before and after Jesus. I just think that he was a prophet. Perhaps so was Mohamed. I don’t know.
Here’s a quote for you I think you’ll enjoy:
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” - Gandhi.
Hi NoelyG,
I counter your trivia with: in the process of conversion to (NKT) Buddhism, the compulsions of my mind directed me to the thought that I ought to become the Last Buddha, as an act of compassion for the infinity of sentient beings who could be thought to come before me. I thus suspended my awakening. I then more formally took up atheism as a default/result.
In the meantime, I think I’ll hang around here for a while. You didn’t clarify if you were (pending to be) of the Roman variety, by the way. Might I, with true respect, ask?
Also, quick question, where’s the button for knowing how to use the quoting machine, etc. I sorta have to run in and out of this place, and haven’t noticed some of the instructions yet…
Hi Insanity,
Can I call you Insanity? Just glad to hear that you weren’t anywhere in the region of being a TomCrusian, and thinking of mental illness as a bootstraps issue.
Ok. Quote button in the corner there. Got it. (I’ll try it next time, but I gotta go clean the toy room…)
Why NKT Buddhism?
Ahhh . . . British? They don’t have much traction in the US as of yet, so I was curious.
Yes, you can call me Insanity. You can also call me “John” or “John Harrison” if you’d like. Of course- you could just as accurately call me “Ringo Lennon” as John Harrison isn’t my real name, but a contraction of two Beatles names that I like to use on the internet.
Hmm. The beige background doesn’t come up in the reply box…
Anyhow, …because that was the one the guy who was giving the lecture on meditation belonged to. Canadian, actually. Unless you were referring to NKT… yes, British. Oh yea, I guess I’m British, too. We fought a war over it and all, s’pose I should represent…
Hi Insanity! Well, imagine that!
I must have missed something: what is NKT Buddhism?
Hi Insanity,
no, I wouldn’t call it a purification process. It’s just a period of study of the teaching of the Church which culminates in the sacrament of confirmation. I was also confirmed in the Lutheran faith when I was about 13 years old or so, but the Catholic Church obviously doesn’t recognize that confirmation as valid. I don’t see how that is anymore significantly “cult” like than say, a doctor spending a set amount of time studying before they can practice.
I’m sure there is a bit of corruption, I wouldn’t say a significant amount though. I wonder what makes you believe it does? Is that based on actual personal observations or experience, or is it just a hunch? It’s not like the RC Church has anywhere near as much power as it used to. In any case, no one is pretending that the RC Church will be free from sinners, not even the RC Church itself!
The Spanish Inquisition and the crusades are small fry compared to what occurred last century. The Inquisition over the period of a few hundred years only executed a “meager” one to two thousand people (yes, I know, one to two thousand too many, but compared to the lives lost under, say, Stalin for instance, this is meager). In any case, I’m not sure there is much to be had blaming either theists or atheists for historical atrocities. It always seems like too simple an analysis. Sure faith (or the lack thereof) may have had some contributing factor to said events, but I think it is erroneous to say Christianity/Theism caused this, or Atheism caused that.
As a side note, I believe the actual comments were pertaining to moral relativism being a contributing factor, which I suppose generally goes in hand with atheism, but I could be wrong.
Hi Oughtist,
Yes Roman variety. I was considering Eastern Orthodox for a while too, but decided to go with the RCC.
Hi fan of Dr. Winston O’Boogie and Boogaloo,
NKT (New Kadampa Tradition, having to do with a revision of the Yellow Hats) Buddhism is a sect started by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a contemporary of the Dalai Lama, in England in the early 1990s. Apparently, his texts (explications of earlier Buddhist texts) are thought by and large to be pretty insightful, but there’s been trouble behind the scenes having to do with deity worship, intrigues of monk-on-monk murder, and, well, I stopped following the stories soon after I started reading them…
As I don’t with many of my RC influences, I certainly don’t reject “Buddhism” per se. But my pea-brain can only handle so much disappointment at a time.
If I might, I think the following piece of traditional Buddhist scripture could be relevant to the broader discussion (from PRIMAL MYTHS: Creation Myths Around the World, Barbara C. Sproul ed., Harper Collins, 1991, pp. 194-5). NOTE: I’ve replaced Brahma with Yahweh for your reading pleasure:
“There are some monks and priests who declare as a doctrine received from their teachers that the beginning of all things was the work of the god Yahweh. I have gone and asked them whether it was true that they maintained such a doctrine, and they have replied that it was; but when I have asked them to explain just how the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh they have not been able to answer, and have returned the question to me. Then I have explained it to them thus:
“There comes a time, my friends, sooner or later, …when the world is dissolved and beings are mostly reborn in the World of Radiance. There they dwell, made of the stuff of mind, feeding on joy, shining in their own light, flying through middle space, firm in their bliss for a long, long time.
“Now there comes a time when this world begins to evolve, and then the World of Yahweh appears, but it is empty. And some being, whether because his allotted span is past or because his merit is exhausted, quits his body in the World of Radiance, and is born in the empty World of Yahweh, where he dwells for a long, long time. Now because he has been so long alone he begins to feel dissatisfaction and longing, and wishes that other beings might come and live with him. And indeed soon other beings quit their bodies in the World of Radiance and come to keep him company in the World of Yahweh.
“Then the being who was born first there thinks: ‘I am Yahweh, the mighty Yahweh, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-seeing, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Supreme Chief, the Disposer, the Controller, the Father of all that is or is to be. I have created all these beings, for I merely wished that they might be and they have come here!’ And the other beings… think the same, because he was born first and they later. And the being who was born first lived longer and was more handsome and powerful than the others.
“And it might well be that some being would quit his body there and be reborn in this world. He might then give up his home for the homeless life; and in his ardor, striving, intentness, earnestness, and keenness of thought, he might attain such a stage of meditation that with the collected mind he might recall his former birth, but not what went before. Thus he might think: ‘We were created by Yahweh, eternal, firm everlasting, and unchanging, who will remain so for ever and ever, while we who were created by the lord Yahweh…are transient, unstable, short-lived, and destined to pass away.’
“That is how your traditional doctrine comes about that the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh.”
…ahem. Sorry, perhaps context and focus are useful, too.
I sometimes imagine that my primary issue with Theism is the requisition of personality. The Buddhist creation myth provides a template of multiplicity which, while not abandoning issues of personage, disposes of the monolithic presence that so encumbers the Western God, trinities and communities of saints notwithstanding (and further to that, but as an aside, NoelG, any thoughts on the epidemic of sainthooding?)…
Is there room for dialogue about the necessity of singular identity? If this has been discussed in a different thread, please advise. Otherwise, is Fichte really that dead? (Not that I’ve actually read him, but then, who has?)