quote:
Originally posted by eryk:
You are preaching a religion based on how helpful YOU are to those less wise. But we don't need your help to be enlightened, and we don't need your permission to read the Bible.
Thank you for your response. Obviously, I disagree with everything you wrote, but at least you gave up your reaction for everyone to benefit by:
A) Its not preaching, its pointing out
B) It does not fulfill the criterion for being a religion, their are no metaphysical assumptions except the primacy of your own psyche in processing your own experience
C)It may be helpful to those who do not realize certain facets of themselves, is their something wrong with that?
D)No, you don't need 'my' help to become enlightened-- whatever the criterion you have chosen to qualify as enlightened-- but most people obviously need some stimulation to thought outside of their system-- personal, religious, social, etc. -- in order to see the boundaries for what they are.
E) My criterion for enlightenment, currently, is absolute freedom...not in the petty governmental/democratic sense but in the sense of experience
F)NO, you certainly don't need my permission to read the Bible, that was a figure of speech appropriate to the nature of what I said
G)To reiterate: I will not stop my deconstruction of religion, in the public eye
H) Seeing as how you did not argue or address me where my meatier arguments lie than I shall assume that your post was an emotional reaction to something which held meaning for you. This is not necessarily undesirable in my view, but, I would desire people to adopt the thinking which leads them towards freedom. If you had such freedom you would not have made the ridiculous assertions you did in your post.
I) If you want to argue me than address me at my 'core' arguments, don't resort to name-labelling such as: oh, he's just preaching another religion. Believe it or not, I think all would benefit by a more reasonable argument.
KO
