Churchlessness is more godly than religion

How can people believe that giving up religiosity makes someone less spiritual, less loving, less humble, less of a truth seeker?

Actually, becoming churchless brings one closer to God. (Let's define that term: "God," for me, is shorthand for "ultimate reality." It denotes mystery, not the known.) Here's why:

You're religious if you believe…

-- there's only one path to God, and you're on it
-- God looks with special favor on the members of your faith
-- after death, you're headed in a better direction than non-believers
-- God likes certain thoughts and actions, and you know what those are
-- aside from God, there's also a devil or negative power who misleads people (but not you!)
-- ultimate truth can be described, and you know the holy words that say it best

You're churchless if you believe…

-- the mystery of God has no limit or boundaries, nor a defined entrance
-- God is omnipresent and omnibenevolent, not playing favorites
-- nobody knows what happens after death, which makes us all equal
-- the nature of God being unknown, morality springs from our own knowing and choosing
-- God is more likely to be oneness rather than twoness, but nobody knows
-- whatever ultimate truth is, no human concepts and words can encompass it

To be unrestrictedly open to God in whatever form this being, power, principle, or whatever might be experienced … this seems to me to be the most spiritual attitude one can have.

In the "churchless" description above, there's a no on every line. That's because no boundaries can be placed around God. How can ultimate reality be put in a box?

It's ultimate! Beyond every other beyond. Further than all furtherness.

I don't see it playing favorites. I can't believe that it smiles on some and frowns on others. I reject the notion that anyone can describe it.

You're free to disagree. Most people on Earth do. That's why religions are so popular. They offer a feeling of "I'm a special beloved of God."

Me, I enjoy a different feeling: I'm nothing special; I know nothing about God; I may be nothing after I die.

Nothing is a fine place to be, once you get used to its unfamiliar spaciousness.

Comments

[tAo]

Very nice post Brian. So myself, well I guess I'm like uhh...

Churchless to the Bone !? !

[Edward]

If you don't believe, you believe:

-- the path is stuck to the bottom of your feet
-- god is looking at you through your own eye
-- death is an unnecessary fiction convenient to those addicted to memory
-- no one ever does anything right, and morality is a flow chart
-- God is, wait... what?
-- there is only pent-ultimate truth, the elevator doesn't go to the roof

[DL]

"Nothing is a fine place to be, once you get used to its unfamiliar spaciousness."
Oblivion would be instantaneous-no spaciousness, nothing TO GET USED TO; is that what you really want? Not me, McGee! At least admit that you HOPE those who believe in a afterlife are right even if you don't.

[tAo]

DL,
Your complaint is senseless and to no avail, and "HOPE" is utterly futile.

As for "oblivion", you simply wouldn't be around anymore to know or perceive any difference, and it's all entirely in your head anyway. And so too for "those who believe".

You are literally wasting the LIVING moment of your present LIFE, by hoping for and projecting ideas of some supposed future "afterlife".

The only moment of my present life I've wasted is reading your worthless reply, Troll. Don't ever respond to one of my comments again.

[tAo]

Hey DL/(blank),

Stick it up your faggot ass you goofy little moron. You are a nobody - a pathetic joke, and btw, you are less than powerless to demand anything. So flame-on little turd-brain. Oh, and don't forget to flush yourself down the toilet when you're done. Hah Hah!

[tucson]

DL,

"Nothing" is a plenum of infinite possibility and freedom unrestricted by the fetters of dogma and conditional, relative belief.

Perhaps rather than making the weak defensive reply of calling tAo a troll, why not try to intelligently address the issues he raised?

And Edward says it best!

[Brian]

tucson, good response. And yes, Edward did say it best. I particularly liked, "the path is stuck to the bottom of your feet."

[DL]

Tucson,
I called it a Troll because of the insulting language of it's reply; I have no desire to debate with abusive people or those who enable them like you and Brian. I did'nt even bother to read it's reply(hee hee!) when I correctly called it a Troll( an anonymous poster who insults and flames people because it disagrees with your post)
I'm outta this hate filled forum for good!!

[tAo]

DL,

For your information, since your claim against me is in fact FALSE, and since it is actually YOU who were the first one to use "insulting" and abusive language towards ME by calling ME a "Troll", and since you now have made the FALSE ACCUSATION that I had supposedly used "insulting language" towards you in my initial reply to you...

Here is an exact copy of my initial response to you (so that both you and the readers can clearly see that nowhere did I use any such "insulting language" in my initial remarks to you, as so you so falsely claim):

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

DL,
Your complaint is senseless and to no avail, and "HOPE" is utterly futile.

As for "oblivion", you simply wouldn't be around anymore to know or perceive any difference, and it's all entirely in your head anyway. And so too for "those who believe".

You are literally wasting the LIVING moment of your present LIFE, by hoping for and projecting ideas of some supposed future "afterlife".

Posted by: tAo | September 18, 2008 at 07:23 PM

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2008/09/churchlessness.html#comment-131306816

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

You can clearly see that this - my initial comment to you - was simply in response to your comment to Brain regarding "nothing" and "oblivion" etc etc. There is nothing whatsoever in my comment that could be construed as "insulting language". Therfore your accusation is FALSE and shows that you are attempting to distort the facts to suit yourself and to justify YOUR OWN use subsequent of "insulting language" by calling me a "Troll".

Therefore, it is quite clear that your accusation is indeed FALSE, and also that it is YOU who was the one to first start using "insulting language" towartds ME (ie: calling me a "Troll"), and NOT the other way around as you claim.

Also, since it is actually YOU who were the one to FIRST begin using "insulting language" TOWARDS ME, then you simply cannot expect not to get some of the same back.

If you don't want to receive it back, then don't dish it out in the first place.

The lesson for YOU here is that you really ought to stick to the actual facts and be more accurate in your assertions and accusations against others, and not be dishonest and distort the truth.

The very fact that it was YOU who first initiated "insulting language" towards ME, and thus YOU who picked an unnecessary fight with me, shows that it is really YOU who is the "Troll" in this particular circumstance.

And that's also why you have indicated that you will now run away from this forum (after using "insulting language" against ME and then making your bogus false accusation against ME).

So it now seems that I was right when I lableled you a "joke". However, if you wish to fully admit your mistake and apologise to me for being the one to initiate "insulting language", then I may possibly re-consider.

[DL]

Tao,
What about "senseless"?- "lacking mental perception, appreciation, or comprehension.
Stupid or foolish, as persons or actions." You really don't consider that insulting? However,if you did use it in another one of its less offensive definitions, I do apologize.

[tAo]

DL,

You have asked: "What about "senseless"?" (and then you proceeded to give a broad definition, none of which applies to my use of the term "senseless")

-- First of all, for the sake of clarity and reference, YOUR original comment (to Brian) was the following:

"Oblivion would be instantaneous-no spaciousness, nothing TO GET USED TO; is that what you really want? Not me, McGee! At least admit that you HOPE those who believe in a afterlife are right even if you don't." [Posted by: DL | September 18, 2008 at 06:06 PM]

To which I then responded:

"DL, Your complaint is senseless and to no avail, and "HOPE" is utterly futile." [Posted by: tAo | September 18, 2008 at 07:23 PM]

My use of the term "senseless", as I used it relative to your stated notion of "Oblivion would be instantaneous-no spaciousness, nothing TO GET USED TO", indicates that your complaint ("is that what you really want? Not me, McGee!"), was without any sense or logic (imo), and in other words - meaningless (imo). Oblivion would simply mean that there would be absolutely no one (ie: no awareness) present... so there would be no question of either "is that what you really want", or of "Not me, McGee". THAT is what I meant by "senseless", and not anything "insulting" as you have mis-judged.

So again, there is nothing there in my comment that can reasonably be construed to mean or indicate anything "insulting", nor did it indicate that I was calling you or your actions "stupid or foolish", as you have been trying to imply and to assert.

Basically, you are interpreting my comment erroneously, and then using that misintreptation as a bogus staw-man argument against me.

To put it bluntly, that's bullshit, and anyone can easily see that. You have attempted to distort the intended meaning of my words, and then employ that to accuse me of using "insulting language".

You are distorting the plain facts. My use or choice of the term "senseless" in this case, had absolutely nothing to do with "insulting language" against you... and simply and ONLY to do with my opinion about your complaint and reaction regarding "oblivion".

You have taken a simple term (used imperonally) like "senseless", and have twisted it and blown it up into a false straw-man accusation of "insulting language".

So all that being said, my response to your question "You really don't consider that insulting?" is simply NO, I do not consider my using the term "senseless" to be insulting towards you in any way. However, you clearly in sulted me by calling me a "troll" without reason or cause.

You then said: "if you did use it in another one of its less offensive definitions, I do apologize."

-- OK, but I have already made that explanation quite clear above.

Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge others or to jump to conclusions, especially when there is no obvious overt evidence that anyone (such as myself) has personally insulted you. And in fact, as it turns out, it was YOU who deliberately and intentionally insulted ME for no apparent reason.

[Roger]

"whatever ultimate truth is, no human concepts and words can encompass it"

---this statement is very important. Kinda makes me need to use the "clueless" word, a lot.

When I view the Grand Canyon, in person. Kinda makes me need to use the word, "Erosion" a lot.

[Daniel]

--there's only one path to God, and you're on it.

This is quite a universal statement. It can be applied to everyone regardless of their religious/spiritual affiliation/non-affiliation. We are all moving towards "god" whether we are aware of it or not. How we choose to acknowledge this movement depends on our spiritual attachments.

God is one. God is. All things come from the One, and nothing can exist without the all. To define the One is to limit the limitless. To label the One is to name the nameless. To personify the One is to give form to the formless. To do any of these is to deny the one its incomprehensible wholeness in favor of our small visions of singular attributes of the All.

It doesn't matter what you call god, it isn't god.

Just my view.

[tAo]

Daniel,

Hmmm....
Well here's my (somehwat different) view:

There is NO path to God, as "God" is merely an idea.

We are not moving "towards god", nor away from god.... even if you think that you "choose to acknowledge this movement", or if you have or don't have "spiritual attachments"... which are also only ideas.

God is not "one", nor otherwise. God is just a word. The "One" is also just a word, just a concept. So the idea that "nothing can exist without the all" is meaningless, because that too is to try to "limit the limitless". Whatever seems to exist, is also nothing. That's because... what is "existence"? Existence is also just an idea.

To even say "the One", is to "label the One". There is no "One". "One" is merely an idea. And what is an idea?

No need to give "form to the formless". Form is not other than formless.

So there is neither "the one", nor "the All".

It doesn't matter whether you do or you don't "call god" anything... as "god" is only an idea.

[Daniel]

Yes, that is also "true". Words are just words, in and of themselves meaningless. Ideas are constructs of the mind/self/ego/id(?). Absolute truth (whatever you choose to call it, god, one, is, etc) is ultimately unknowable thus pointless to try and label. Sometimes though, for the sake of debate/discussion, labels become necessary if only to convey some idea of what you mean.

The quote "God is one. God is...." comes from a very short book I wrote that is always evolving. just a series of statements that sums up what I believe or not believe or whatever. A related maxim from that book goes like this:

All things visible and knowable are open to interpretation: but the invisible truth, which upholds all things, is forever unchanging and unknowable.

Take it at face value. analyze it. tear it apart. It doesn't matter. Moving toward, running away from, standing still, it's all the same, just different words.