Dhyaanee
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Dhyaanee
-
-
1 minute ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:
IMHO, the more oppressive a system (religious, governing, or otherwise) is, the more it deserves to be mocked. Unfortunately, more oppressive systems oppress mockery more effectively too.
Unless we know someone well though we can't know if they are sincerely trying to become more loving through their practice, or if they are only wanting to feel superior to those outside their beliefs and could only connect with them if another would 'convert' and be just like them. So we do need to be careful.
-
10 minutes ago, kiramanell said:35 minutes ago, Dhyaanee said:
too true
* It saddens me though, that they are reacting against a misinterpretation of spirituality being expressed in stages 1 & 2.
I don't think it's the spirituality per se they react against; more the organization itself. Like the Catholic Church is very hierarchical (among other things...). And threating fire and brimstone (in most all Churches) have been tools to force ppl into compliance. If I were God (ahem), I would rather have someone truly choose me
“Lord, if I love You out of fear of hell, cast me into hell!if I love you out of hope of Heaven, close its gates to me!
... to me; but if I love you for the sake of loving you, do not deny yourself to me!
The road to knowing what love is...it's a very long one.
Yes I agree with what you're saying here, about what they're truly rebelling against. What saddens me is if they don't look deeper due to the original misinterpretations. They could stay in the defensive position forever unfortunately.
-
An elderly lady was well-known for her faith and for her boldness in talking about it. She would stand on her front porch and shout “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Next door to her lived an atheist who would get so angry at her proclamations he would shout, “There ain’t no Lord!!”Hard times set in on the elderly lady, and she prayed for GOD to send her some assistance. She stood on her porch and shouted “PRAISE THE LORD. GOD I NEED FOOD!! I AM HAVING A HARD TIME. PLEASE LORD, SEND ME SOME GROCERIES!!”
The next morning the lady went out on her porch and noted a large bag of groceries and shouted, “PRAISE THE LORD.”
The neighbor jumped from behind a bush and said, “Aha! I told you there was no Lord. I bought those groceries, God didn’t.”
The lady started jumping up and down and clapping her hands and said, “PRAISE THE LORD. He not only sent me groceries, but He made the devil pay for them. Praise the Lord!”
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:
What does LFB stand for? I've tried looking it up but all I find is London Fire Brigade and Little Fat Buddy, neither of which make sense in the context.
Here in Croatia it means "little frisky butt".
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, kiramanell said:
Fun trivia about that 3rd stage, btw, is that many ppl think those in that 3rd stage have abandoned God or something; whilst, in reality (according to the man's theory), they're often more spiritual than those in organized religon.
It's just that -- for the time being -- they're too weary of all the BS that comes with the latter. Then, all traumas healed and all, they don't return to lv. 2, but enter stage 4.
too true
* It saddens me though, that they are reacting against a misinterpretation of spirituality being expressed in stages 1 & 2.
-
6 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:18 minutes ago, Dhyaanee said:
I can understand that. But if it's causing no harm in the forum might be best not to bring up a whole lot of things you differ on. The group might think you are wanting a fight and so turn against you. Pick your battles wisely, I say
No, I don't want a fight. I just needed a break from it not the poster themselves if that's the way they need to express themselves. It felt a bit like spam to me over and over and over. I wouldn't want overkill about anything in my feeds because overkill is overkill and that's all. I don't know how others might feel if some of us were overkilling something else but I think they might feel the same way about "overkill" too.
My experience is that when you tell people they are doing something 'too much', they just do it more
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:
if we asked "who is .... "
it's a new sekrit society
-
2 minutes ago, kiramanell said:
I'm not Scylla. For one, she remembers stuff, and I keep forgetting things. 😊 My point being, there's this psychiatrist (who's name I forgot, doh), who basically splits up religious experiences in 4 stages:
1) Chaos (where ppl believe in nothing);
2) Organized Religion (where I'd say most ppl are, to date);
4) In this stage ppl simply believe because they want to, with their soul, and not because they have to, or out of fear. It's the highest state.
All this long-winded intro, just to get to stage
3) This is the pertinent stage at hand here, as it's the phase where ppl have abandoned organized religion, and are free-thinkers, as it were. Feeling liberated from organized religion, rites, must-do's, fear-mongering and what not, ppl in this stage are often acting out rebelliously against organized religion. Not out of disrespect, but simply for finally being free, and letting 'them' know it. And I think that's a lot of what we're seeing here.
So, again, I think you are 100% right. And I find it very encouraging to see you were able to so sharply identify this 3rd phase (while you may not even be aware of this psychiatrist's work). Me, I needed his book. 😁 So, kudos on you for yet another great post!
My best friend is an atheist. She seems to be at that 3rd stage you describe here. She is compelled to tell everyone she's an atheist. Sometimes I just roll my eyes, and try to remember how she's been hurt by some religious nutjobs. She knows I'm a big fan of spirituality (not the organized religious type) and no doubt she thinks I'm nuttier than a fruitcake some days!
We're good friends.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:
this is the alt of Seicher Rae
who is Seicher Rae?
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:
The forum has been inundated with Taylor Swift stuff for a few days now. I never saw it before here on the forums? I don't want to see Taylor Swift stuff on FB either. But, of course if others do, that's up to them. But, I needed a break from it. It was getting into overkill territory.
I can understand that. But if it's causing no harm in the forum might be best not to bring up a whole lot of things you differ on. The group might think you are wanting a fight and so turn against you. Pick your battles wisely, I say
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, kiramanell said:6 minutes ago, Dhyaanee said:
Sometimes they are don't you think?
If so, I haven't seen it in this thread yet, though. Just ppl telling light-hearted jokes.
Fair enough, that you are referring only to this thread and what you've seen.
From my perspective I've seen a bit of making fun on this thread, but a very tiny amount.
-
I don't advocate making fun of anyone for their beliefs, even if I find them absurd or don't understand them. It's rude really. But I do get why some do make fun of religion as so many people have been oppressed throughout the ages and even today, by religious people who believe only they have the truth. So making fun, in some cases, is a bit of a hit back for what amounts to abuse.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, kiramanell said:
but I'm disowning the idea that ppl are making fun of a religion.
Sometimes they are don't you think?
-
4 minutes ago, Orwar said:
... ... What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus ..?
What's the difference between the truth and what people determine is the truth?
-
7 hours ago, Dano Seale said:
All of which just goes to show that "Religion" should'nt become a topic of conversation....ANYWHERE! (Much the same as Taylor Swift!).
That sparked an interesting insight for me. I think we could compare Taylor Swift to a religion in it's own mini way here on the forum. Nothing wrong with people wanting to find commonality, to bond over what they've determined the truth to be, to find comfort in making a truth out of the chaos of life (that truth for them being that Taylor Swift is AWESOME). I certainly wouldn't find any value in taking that away from them. But what if (not that anyone here has done so) they insisted everybody else believe this, or treated badly those who did not get with the Taylor Swift program, even excluding them in the positive reinforcement group membership can bring? Here we see both the value of 'religion' and the problems that can develop from it.
-
1
-
-
-
-
40 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
Nothing the government does is free and eventually it all impacts the people financially.
It doesn't seem to affect the wealthy as much though, especially these days. Funny, that.
-
33 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:2 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:
well the government could have actually supported the economy for awhile
Either "we the people" would have been supporting the economy, via increased taxes, or our national debt would have climbed even higher, meaning our children for many generations would have been paying. Nothing the government does is free and eventually it all impacts the people financially. Our US national debt is now over 25 TRILLION. The large relief package that Congress passed was 3 Trillion of that --- TRILLION, i.e. a number with TWELVE zeros (1,000,000,000,000). How many more Trillion would it have taken to pay for everything for multiple months?
Yet some other countries are managing to do this - paying businesses to keep afloat until it's safe for business to resume. Otherwise the business must close in many cases, the business owner and all their employees never to return. What will the economic fallout of that be? I can tell you now it's not pretty, and will cost more over the long term than simply paying them to keep afloat for awhile.
So now, in the US, we have a huge unemployment problem, and I probably don't have to tell you what the likes of a Great Depression would bring to our world.
Sometimes giving to those in need actually improves society in the end, even economically.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:
However, what the government proposed to small businesses was a kind of a loan without interest, I think. How can those businesses take on a loan when they don't have any business let alone know what the heck is going on really?
So, there are loans but with no business, many were afraid to take the loans. I would be too.
Yes it would be dangerous to take out a loan when we don't know what the fallout will be after Covid.
It the government had simply continued to pay the business as if they were open then after lockdown payments to employees from said business could have resumed with ease (that is if customers don't feel perpetually fearful of public spaces for years to come and cause everything to crash no matter what businesses do).
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Mollymews said:23 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:
You make it sound like there is something wrong with a competitive capitalist market creating both winners and losers
not quite
it isn't that competition (of any kind) produces winners and losers. It does
the question is: how can we harness competition to deliver for the widest number of people ? In the merchantilist view we don't. There can be only one. Sovereignties for example are the most merchantile of systems. There is only one. The sovereign. Everybody else can only win when the sovereign lets them
Why is that? Do you think they're stuck in the past and so can only see one solution to maintain/increase profits (an underclass of slaves earning subsistence wages)? Or do you think they're basically attached to exploitation and maintaining the stratification of patriarchy where one class must dominate another in order for the world to feel right to them? As if the world would cease to have any meaning if there was not the rise to the top of something, and the "endless growth" belief that accompanies this philosophy?
-
9 hours ago, Mollymews said:
the first rationale for UBI (universal basic income) and MI (minimum income) like systems is technical. Reduce bureaucracy. Keep it simple. There is only one kind of public assistance. And only one government agency (like the IRS) to administer it
why we end up with carve outs is because of the politics. The big politic is the moralising in the minds of the people: The deserving and undeserving poorwhy should some lazy person get as much as me. I work, they don't. I am deserving, they are not. If those girls kept their legs crossed then they wouldn't have had a kid which I end up paying for. I am deserving, they are not. If that person racked up a mountain of debt like I did to get my qualifications then I wouldn't have to support them. I am deserving, they are not. How come that migrant family got public assistance before me, they just walked in off the boat. I am deserving, they are not. And on and on
the second rationale for universal systems is to remove this moralising. That for all the reasons why a person might be impoverished doesn't change the fact that they are
Blaming is an art form here in the US
Fortunately the New Deal prevails, but for how long? And will reality change after Covid-19?
-
13 hours ago, FairreLilette said:21 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:
Capitalism is inherently exploitative, unsustainable, creates economic inequality, anti-democratic, leads to an erosion of human rights, and it incentivizes imperialist expansion and war. Other than that it's just dandy!
If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?
If you think people in America are living in such terrible conditions why don't you and other socialist countries open up immigration for them to come and live there and your socialist country can take care of them since they're "starving" and "dying"?
It's a fair question.
I pointed out the many faults of capitalism in it's raw form. Most countries have elements of both capitalism and socialism, and those are balanced according to what residents of any country believe is important - we mitigate free markets.
Free markets (capitalism in its raw form) do not a society make - they do create winners and losers INITIALLY through competition, but we do not need to have losers if our society mitigates the markets. When our society deems something important we subsidize it, and that is adding elements of socialism where the concerns of the common good or well-being of a society overall come into play. In other words, society assumes ownership of where the goods of society goes in these cases -- assuming ownership for the common good is socialism defined.Take an apartment building, for example. Through the building and management of the building the free market determines the cost of building it, and the price anyone must pay to live there. What do we do, though, when some in society cannot afford to live there, like the mentally or physically disabled, the elderly, or the mother with children? We, the government we elect, will override free market capitalism and subsidize those who cannot pay because it is within our value system to do so. Via socialism we subsidize both wealthy and non-wealthy individuals or companies, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly (like the bank bailouts in '08).
We need to subsidize the poor more. A large percentage of the population are food insecure, and most could not come up with an extra $400 for an emergency expense if needed. The richest 10% own 74% of the wealth, and much of the middle class has been destroyed over the last few decades. Wages have not kept up with inflation. We're in sad shape as a nation. Capitalism has run amok and we need to reign it in with more socialism to demonstrate we care as much about people as we do profit.
-
20 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:21 hours ago, Dhyaanee said:
If there is no need to have a loser (someone who dies, starves, lives in squalor), then why have one?
That only applies to small businesses. Any time capitalism risks letting a small business become a "loser" -- such squealing you'd think some unnatural act was being perpetrated on the free market.
One thing about hyping lockdown-triggered mental illness is that it's a powerfully self-fulfilling prophecy: the more it's promoted as "widespread" the more widespread it becomes, as the expectation of distress spreads among the vulnerable. There's plenty of reason to feel distress, too, but it's a choice to encourage psychological misery as the victimhood of patriots.
Worse, though, is the fanciful "self inflicted" notion that the lockdown, not the virus, caused the economic disruption. If governments (and I definitely include Canada here) hadn't fiddle-fluffed around, stalling for weeks before finally enacting lockdowns, the whole disruption could have been over in a month or so.* Instead, we let the virus spread like wildfire in the cities, extending the duration of the lockdowns and making it many times more difficult to unwind the economic disaster we face now. And it is a disaster. How long before automobile production returns to pre-COVID levels? Detroit is predicting end of 2022 -- and that's if everything goes perfectly and a vaccine is widely available by end of this year. So yeah, hurry and get those barbershops and tattoo parlors and coffeeshops open again because that'll turn everything right around, you betcha.
______________
* and that's allowing for WHO and governments (other than Taiwan) to be deluded by the early suppression of information from China, despite having their own intelligence showing epidemic spread was already underway.Laughs. They worship the structure (businesses, corporations) which ultimately enables them to procure the biggest piece of the pie. The other losers outside their prized system designed for maximum profit through exploitation simply don't count.
Right, they so bungled initial responses to the crisis yet want us to trust their plan now!!?? Uh, no!
Fortunately the New Deal prevails, but for how long? And will reality change after Covid-19?
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
How do you feel about religious humor in Second Life?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Ahh ok...yeah I totally agree that all should be free to express when they feel something is overkill.
You do have to be prepared for the pushback though, and sometimes dealing with that reaction is simply not worth it. So myself, I pick my battles wisely and even when I feel something is overkill quite often I don't express that.