For future reference...

[logansrogue]

Okay. I saw something today that reminded me of something I'd noticed this past few weeks and I had the urge to post this so that people knew this when talking to me.

Now, keep in mind, I don't care what you do or say in your own journal. I figure people are free to express themselves in there and I'll just have to shut up and put up. But when speaking to me personally, or in a comment thread, or in email or chat or whatever, this post is just something I want people to keep in mind.

I'm not religious in a mainstream, church-going, bible-thumping, highly-moral sort of way. In a lot of things I'm pretty laid back. But I am very, *very* spiritual. Deeply so. I have my reasons for being so and I'm not going to bring them up here cause it'll take too long and all that sort of thing.

I didn't realise how spiritual I was until I heard my sister Helen watching videos from the Youtube Blasphemy Challenge. I defend people's right to say whatever they said in those videos. Go for it - it's a free media. I couldn't say that I enjoyed hearing it, though (And I didn't choose to listen to those videos - Helen was watching them in the same room as me). In fact it hurt me to hear people say those things and I don't really know why. People saying they hated God - that was the worst. That they were looking to the heavens and saying "You don't exist" - it bothered me. And that surprised me because I don't really consider myself all that attached to any sort of belief system.

Perhaps it's my Catholic upbringing, I don't know. Maybe it's the fact that I see God differently from other people. I don't see a white bearded man on a throne and I don't see a wrathful entity that wants it His way or the highway, and that's what most people seem to be angry at. I know it might not make sense to some of you, that I believe in a higher power, that I believe in the spirit not only inside of us, but around us. I have a lot of logically minded friends, a lot of atheists and agnostics and you name it. I respect their decision not to believe in anything.

I'd hope that everyone else would do me the same courtesy and respect my beliefs. I remember talking to a couple of people about Swancon, and they were incredulous that I would miss it on Friday and Sunday. It was Easter Weekend. If someone says, "I can't make it on this day and that day because it's Easter", you can assume, safely, that they have certain beliefs. You don't widen your eyes and ask, repeatedly, "Why? Why miss it?" "It's Easter." "So?"

So? So that's the end of the story. It's very uncomfortable for me to explain what I get up to that weekend. No, I don't go to church. I usually spend the time watching Jesus movies, during which I contemplate the story I'm watching. It's a six hour miniseries so that's a lot of contemplation. People generally look at me weird when I say that's what I do, but it's what I do. And I spend time with my family as well.

I'm going off course here, I really wanted to keep this short and succinct. The message I'm trying to get across is the following:

Yes, I am spiritual. Please, don't use me as your great example to the world of how irreligious you are and be rude to me about what I happen to believe. I don't care. You're just being an ass.

Comments

[angriest.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you have a similar religious belief to mine.

[angriest.livejournal.com]

Except, of course I go to Swancon for the whole of Easter. Not for religious purposes, I should add, before some wacky scamp does.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I went for some of it. I just couldn't bring myself to miss Easter Friday and Easter Sunday. I need my Jesus time once a year. LOL.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

There's this book called "Jesus and the Goddess". It's *very* close to what I believe, but not quite there because I don't see this reality as some 'terrible existence' we need to free ourselves from. I tend to view it as all things happen for a reason we don't know of. But yeah - I tend to view God as uhm... good metaphor - a fibre optic lamp. Except each little point of light at the end is a life. And all those fibres meet up to one big glowing light. And that's everything to me.

It's always very hard to explain that. My thoughts on Jesus even more so. I usually just point to a book and say "Read it." LOL!

[pooxs.livejournal.com]

I also enjoy watching jesus movies at easter (and christmas, but they don't tend to have them on then anymore). I watched one this year with Christian Bale as Jesus. that was a good movie!

I don't quite understand how people, even those that aren't religious (because my family aren't), don't use easter to spend time together as family. we do the wonderful pagan thing of easter egg hunts. and the youngest in my family is me at 23!! some of Megan's friends stayed with us over easter and were thrilled at the egg hunt :)

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I always watch this old Franco Zeferelli miniseries called "Jesus of Nazareth" and it has Robert Powell as Jesus. He really is the best Jesus ever, so gorgeous and powerful and mesmerising. Brilliant actor, really top notch. It's such a good Jesus movie too, cause it is BURSTING with good actors. Christopher Plummer, Peter Ustinov, Michael York, Olivia Hussey, the list goes on.

Oh, you're a woman after my own heart, Kate. I still do Easter Egg hunts and I'm pushing for 30!! I didn't this year because I was exhausted after the ball and it was awful weather outside, but I'll be back a-hunting next year :D

Not everyone gets along with their families, I suppose. *shrugs* I guess we're lucky that we like ours.

[pooxs.livejournal.com]

yeah, families are wonderful things :)

[fifteensixty.livejournal.com]

The Blasphemy Challenge needs to be considered in its correct context, otherwise I can see how it can be offensive.

The correct context is to be found in Richard Dawkins's book, The God Delusion. I highly recommend it, because Dawkins brings up some fundamental issues with religion and what people do in the name of religion. It would be ok if religion was harmless and if all religious people were like you - proud of their beliefs but not compelled to push them upon other people, spiritual but not zealous, intelligent and considerate, respectful of others' beliefs. But that's not the way things are, and this is the issue that Dawkins raises in his book.

In the name of religion, people have inflicted a lot of suffering on this world, and have done so for thousands of years. I'm not just talking about Holy Wars or fundamentalist terrorism or the Inquisition or slavery. There are some fundamental components of religion that oppose understanding and knowledge. The concept of faith, i.e. belief without empirical evidence, in a lot of ways contradicts rationality and logic, and this sort of faith has often stood in the way of progress towards improving society (such as when religion takes issue with scientific work such as stem cell research which could save the lives of thousands of people in the future, or when Christianity tries to put creationism into the science classroom instead of evolution, etc).

The Blasphemy Challenge is an exercise. It is not an opportunity to bash God. What's the point of someone bashing God when they probably don't believe in God? There's no point in saying "I hate God" when one doesn't believe there is a God to hate. What the Blasphemy Challenge is an exercise in is opposing what has been done in the name of God, opposing all the problems associated with religion, and being vocal about it instead of being cowed into silence and submission. The religious voice has long been a loud and strong voice. The religious stand-point has long been accepted, and although there is increasingly wide acceptance of people of different religions and denominations across the board in society, studies have shown that the majority of religious people still consider atheists to be totally without morals and refuse to show tolerance or acceptance towards them. The humanist or atheist voice has been oppressed because it is vastly in the minority. Atheism is still discriminated against openly (e.g. Dinesh D'Souza's recent atheist-bashing in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, where he digustingly used this tragedy to push his own anti-atheist agenda by saying that atheists are basically emotionless robots who don't care about the shootings because they have no concept of the value of life).

[cont.]

[fifteensixty.livejournal.com]

So the Blasphemy Challenge is about being vocal and standing up for one's opinion. Dawkins espouses that atheists should challenge religion because religious beliefs can distort perception and certain parts of religion can teach people to accept things without evidence. Atheists should challenge religious belief because the religion is acting like a lens and religious people often look through this lens and see a skewed view of the world. That's not to say this happens all the time, or to all religious people, but if they're looking through the lens and believing in a literal Genesis that has no evidence instead of believing in evolutionary biology, which has copious amounts of empirical evidence, then their world-view is going to be short-sighted, and our progress towards being a better society will be limited. If people look through the religious lens and think that it's ok to discriminate against other people of various race/sex/social status/ethnicity because their God said it was ok, then we're all the worse for it. If people look through the religious lens and accept something just because they were told that's the way it is, instead of investigating for themselves, analysing the evidence, and coming to their own decision, then we surely cannot move forwards and improve our world.

The Blasphemy Challenge was just a call to action for atheists to finally have their voices heard. It isn't supposed to be about insulting anyone. It's about questioning something that has been in place for so long that people don't know how to see the world without it. The problem is that religious views have so long been treated as if they cannot be questioned, but why is this? If a person believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth and they say this is part of their personal religion, should I say "Fair enough, they can believe what they want"? If a person says "I think children should be beaten as punishment because that's what my personal religion says", should I stand back and accept that? What about female circumcision? That's a religious belief, but you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who will say "Sure, it's fine to crush a young girl's clitoris with a stone to deprive her of sexual enjoyment because sexual enjoyment should be exclusively the domain of men -- and it's ok because it's a religious belief". Dawkins is saying that there shouldn't be a problem with anyone questioning anyone's religious beliefs. Criticism of religion should not be a cultural taboo.

I can see that some of the individual Challenge videos could be insulting, and that the people who filmed them probably didn't fully comprehend the point of the exercise, but in the end the exercise has an important and fundamental purpose in challenging the status quo so that hopefully we, as a society, can become more progressive, accepting and enlightened.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

See, you're a logical and well-spoken (written?) individual. You explained yourself beautifully and I can see where you're coming from. If I'd been exposed to Blasphemy Challenge in that context, I'd probably be far less annoyed about it. Unfortunately you have people involved that are obviously missing the point. The spoke of nothing you said and just espoused vitriol that really rubbed me the wrong way.

See, the problem with Dawkins and that way of thinking is that it assumes that religiousness = fundamentalism. (From what you've said) It's not. Religion is such a huge, diaphonous and multi-faceted thing that you can't point at a group of people and say "HEY! You're being stupid cause you believe in A!" without insulting or misjudging an entire other group of people.

What Dawkins seems to be missing is that the problems of humanity run deeper than religion. You can't point to religion and blame it for everything. Religion has done SO MUCH for humanity, as much as you might hate to admit that. It helped develop architecture, art, writing, book-making, it built countries and many of the largest charities today are helped by religious organisations. Some communities are held together by group worship and this has been going on since the dawn of time. Trying to wage war on it is like trying to get rid of music.

Now, in regard to this:

The problem is that religious views have so long been treated as if they cannot be questioned, but why is this? If a person believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth and they say this is part of their personal religion, should I say "Fair enough, they can believe what they want"? If a person says "I think children should be beaten as punishment because that's what my personal religion says", should I stand back and accept that? What about female circumcision? That's a religious belief, but you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who will say "Sure, it's fine to crush a young girl's clitoris with a stone to deprive her of sexual enjoyment because sexual enjoyment should be exclusively the domain of men -- and it's ok because it's a religious belief".

Well, I don't think any religions should be able to do something that hurts a person. There's not a *huge* amount we can do about foreign countries. You're also not paying attention to the fact that the countries where those awful things happen have a *history* of misogynist culture.

And I know, in Australia at least, that one is not allowed to bash children - full stop. Religion has no power here to let people pound their kids indiscriminately despite perfectly good laws.

I've always found Dawkins to be a bit of a dick, really. That's a purely personal value judgement, I know, but I had to get that off my chest cause I really can't stand the fucker.

[fifteensixty.livejournal.com]

Dawkins doesn't blame religion for everything, but it has caused a lot of problems in the world (or rather, people interpreting religion have caused a lot of problems in the world). Religion has done a lot for humanity, such as art and architecture, but it could be argued that such great things could have existed without religion. There is so much beauty in the natural world; could we not have painted pictures and written music about just that rather than in the context of it being God's creation? Dawkins made the point that perhaps, if society had been different at the time and our knowledge had been more advanced, why could Bach not have written the Evolution Orotario and had it be a beautiful composition? Much of the Renaissance art that is religious in nature is also only so because the Church were patrons. The artists themselves were not necessarily religious, but were simply painting what they had been asked to paint by their religious patrons. Since it was often only the Church (or the religious Medici) that had enough money at the time to commission such artworks, this explains why the great art of the Renaissance was religious in subject. So some of the greatest art of one of the greatest periods is only religious in nature because it was paid for by religion, not because it was inspired by religion.

You're also not paying attention to the fact that the countries where those awful things happen have a *history* of misogynist culture.

But culture is so often informed by religion. Some Muslim countries are misogynistic because the Koran says that women are property of men. Culture doesn't just appear out of nowhere. It often starts as religious belief or superstition.

As for my examples of belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth or beating children should be allowed, those were hypothetical examples that I made. My point was that things shouldn't be justified or unquestionable just because they're religious beliefs. If there was a hypothetical religion where girls were not allowed an education but boys were, should everyone just stand back and accept it because it's religious belief, or should we criticise and intervene because it's violating the human rights to knowledge and education and freedom? That's the point -- why are religious beliefs so taboo to criticise just because they're religious?

I know a lot of people have a problem with Dawkins, even within the atheist community, but all he is doing is standing up for what he believes in. He's no more in-your-face than a religious evangelist, but with the advantage that he isn't forcing his beliefs on people -- he wants them to listen to the evidence and make up their own mind. He is a very intelligent evolutionary biologist who wants to make a difference, so he has to be radical and he has to risk offending people if he wants to make that difference. No cause is going to be furthered if people are meek and mild and don't speak up. People simply can't handle their most dearly-held personal beliefs being criticised, but this is just because society is such that it has been taboo for so long to criticise these things, and this is what Dawkins is trying to change.

[fifteensixty.livejournal.com]

And if you don't believe atheists are oppressed (by which I mean we are not equally accepted or tolerated), have a regular read of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula). It documents many occasions that atheists are told to sit down and shut up or not make a stir, and many occasions where someone is discriminated against for not being religious. I know there isn't an obvious discrimination against atheists in more secular nations such as Australia (I've never been discriminated against because of my atheism except when I was forced to do Christian religious education in my public primary school, which was probably a good thing because that, combined with going to a private Christian high school, gave me a chance to thoroughly learn about Christianity and come to the decision that I did not agree with it and did not want to be part of that faith).

But the problem is in countries like the USA. There are seven states in the US in which you can't be elected into government if you are an atheist. People get fired in the USA for being atheist. People try to force creationism into science classrooms (this also happens in the UK, in private schools where children are taught to reject evolution and science and only accept the Bible). There's a huge debate going on at the moment in Science magazine where scientists are being told to not publicise research that contradicts any religious beliefs -- that's silencing the non-religious. A poll recently showed that the American public was more likely to vote for a presidential candidate that had a previous drug problem or had been convicted of a crime than an atheist (out of all the categories, atheists were always least likely to be voted for, mainly because people assumed atheists had no morals). The student leader of an atheist organisation at a university was recently physically assaulted by two religious students who opposed the fact that he was posting flyers about a physics lecture that the atheist organisation was hosting. If this isn't all oppression of some form, I don't know what is.

Just because we can speak out, doesn't mean we're being accepted and treated as equal. That's why people are finally speaking out, as unwelcome as it may be.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Oh - and atheists aren't oppressed. They can vote, they can say what they want, they can publish books and have a video meme that completely loses the original point. So I don't see why you need to have your 'voices heard'. We hear them already. People just disagree with you.

[commanderteddog.livejournal.com]

I don't think "oppressed" is the right word. Using it would be like me saying my beliefs are oppressed, which would get tossed back into my face by hardliners from other sides. I have no doubt that some atheists have been insulted, yet I have been insulted personally for my own beliefs. I'm cool with disagreements, but all sides seem to suffer right now because the extremists make for higher TV ratings.

The main problem, at least in my eyes, is saying "oppressed" makes it seem like everyone is against the subject and it's generally wanky. The correct phrase would be something more along the lines of "Some people are stupid assholes who can't accept anything outside of their idea of a perfect world." :D

UNITE AGAINST THE STUPID!

/bored and stuck at home

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, I agree with you entirely there. I don't think ALL atheists think they're oppressed. Some just *act* like they are and that bothers me. It's the wanky behaviour that bothers me, not the beliefs in themselves.

I mean, I dated at atheist. I marvelled at how we had completely different world views but they tended to come back to the same place anyway.

I just dislike it when people decide to make the protest in a completely inappropriate context, like in personal conversation.

[fifteensixty.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't mean for that interpretation of "oppressed". We're not oppressed in the sense of Apartheid or segregation or women not being allowed to vote. I meant we're oppressed in the sense that our views are not as tolerated or accepted as they should be, and that this creates an atmosphere in which atheists are compelled to not be as vocal as they might be and aren't free to communicate their ideas and beliefs. The whole issue in Science magazine at the moment, with "framing" and saying that science should ignore research that contradicts religious belief for fear of making religious people anti-science -- that's certainly an attempt at oppression because it's an attempt at silencing non-religious viewpoints. Just generally being insulted or mistreated for being an atheist probably isn't "oppression", per se, and we shouldn't go around with a persecution complex, but it's still a lack of acceptance that is worth standing up against.

[commanderteddog.livejournal.com]

"I meant we're oppressed in the sense that our views are not as tolerated or accepted as they should be, and that this creates an atmosphere in which atheists are compelled to not be as vocal as they might be and aren't free to communicate their ideas and beliefs."

Again, what I find worrisome in this world is that many non-mainstream beliefs (or lack thereof, if you want to look at it that way) are shunned, for lack of a better word. I'm LDS and it's hard to mention this in passing without dealing with the same bullshit with not being tolerated.

What I don't like is singling out just one belief system, because it's a wide spread problem that crosses theological lines. The last thing we need is even more divides to work through.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Nobody is being oppressed unless people are being limited their freedoms because of what they believe.

Atheists aren't and that's my final word on the subject (cause talking about it puts me in a needlessly bad mood and we don't want that when I'm this premenstrual).

[commanderteddog.livejournal.com]

Thread is now about kitties!

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

D'AWWWWWWWW!!!

[brentdax.livejournal.com]

There have been documented cases, especially in the U.S., of government officials discriminating against atheists in the last decade or so. (Dawkins discusses one in which police threatened a man who asked for protection while protesting at a faith healer's meeting.) Hell, George Bush Sr. even said that he didn't consider atheists citizens. There's certainly no de jure discrimination here, but de facto...well, when I sent in my college application I made sure I listed myself as "Jewish", because you never know what kind of person makes the decisions.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I think the word people are searching for is 'judged' rather than 'oppressed'.

I can't speak for the US, not at all cause I don't live there. But certainly in Australia, a very large number of the population is agnostic or atheist. There is no 'oppression' here and if people say so I'd probably laugh at them. Talk to some black people and then come back to me and speak about oppression. That's - that's what I'm talking about.

I gotta stop talking about this stuff cause I'm getting grumpy and I'm too premenstrual for that. LOL!

George Bush is a fuckwit - we both know that. That's a single person's idiocy.

[brentdax.livejournal.com]

I was talking about Bush Sr., the guy who was President in the early nineties. Everybody knows the current President Bush is a fuckwit, although he's not willing to criticize atheists openly—I suspect because doing so would call his semi-legal "faith-based initiatives" into question.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

See? That's how little I understand about US politics. LOL!

[alya1989262.livejournal.com]

Well, I used to say I was an atheist and, a few years ago, I really was into blasphemy... Yeah, shaking your fist at the heavens and insulting a God I didn't even believe in was, like, Teh Coolest Thing Ever to me. I have an excuse, though; I was 14. I was angry, messed-up, very cynical and, as a result, anti-religious.

I'm not anymore. I'm an agnostic (an apathetic agnostic, at that), but I'm for the existence of religion... I think religion has a "societal" purpose and an "individual" one. See, for a religious individual, religion helps them conquer the fear of dying and also helps them define their moral code and feel reassured that there's someone to guide them and protect them. From a society's point of view, religion is useful as it essentially works to prevent moral depravation.
I admire religion's role in bettering societies (though, sometimes, it's pretty misguided). But I don't subscribe to any religious belief because, on an individual level, I find it unethical; I think that, as a responsible adult, I should be able to espouse the idea of dying and disappearing on day, and, despite that, still have a strong moral fiber, not pushed by the fear of punishment or hope of reward. I think I should be able to do good in the world without a God to tell me so, or 'guide' me or whatever. But that's to do with my own values and ethics and I totally understand and even respect that other people may not have the same ideology or values.

I do still think, though, that blasphemy is, well, important. If you're an atheist, or an agnostic, you always get periods of doubt and fear, and voicing your anger at a Higher Power and, especially, voicing why religion is repulsive to you is a big help in maturing your ideological system.

I just happen to believe that the existence of religion is not only avoidable, but also for the best. But I might be wrong.

... Am I making any sense?

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

You are making sense. The funny thing is that I believe that God doesn't actually want us to do the right thing because He says so. He wants to learn to do the right thing because it's right. It's a lesson to better our spirits and make us closer to God. That's my personal take on it. I get annoyed when people look to religion as a 'How to' guide on their life. I think life is full of wonderful lessons and that we should learn as much as we can, academically and morally.

See, that's the frustrating thing. I agree with Atheists and Agnostics on most things. We just tend to get stuck on this 'God' thing. I think it's possible to have a God and to have your own choices and destiny and be a responsible human being, aware of one's humbling place in the universe. People that don't believe in God sometimes make the mistake that we're all fundamentalist hardcore crazies, and we're not.

I just think it's a mistake to try to make a sharp categorisation of any huge numbers of human beings. We're too variable and individualistic to be able to understand simply like that. I guess that's the beauty of humanity, isn't it? :)

And I never had the thought to be anti-religious. Mum's Catholic. Gran was Catholic. Her husband and my Dad - don't care about religion that much. It's always been a quiet, private thing in our family. We get embarrassed to talk about it. I'm one of the more vocal people in the family but I'm a big hippy, really. I don't go for the mainstream stuff. Gimme the Nag Hammadi scrolls, baby! :D

[aeditimi.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this post. It's beautiful.

I was going to say more, but really that's it.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

*high five*

[http://users.livejournal.com/lothar_/]

Oh, I wouldn't have been offended at all if someone asked why I was out of town for Easter. There are plenty who just make it a family affair and don't put a lot of religious meaning behind it at all.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I don't get offended at people asking, it was the attitude of the questioner involved. You miss out on the facial expressions and tone when I just tell it to you like this. The person was being quite rude to me. It wasn't maliciously so - they were trying to convince me to come out and have a good time but it made me uncomfortable cause I had to divulge the depths of my personal beliefs and it's kind of a private thing for me.

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

I personally think most of the time the problem is not religion but the quest for power in organized religions, ie: priests trying to impose their views on people by means of faith even if those views are independent of religion beliefs on their own. Some of the worst fundamentalism crap is due to this kind of things.
So basically I was agnostic in the past but now I believe in God but not in church/priests. I changed my mind mostly after my father's death, partly because some kind of experiences of communication with him my mother, my siter and myself had by this time, and also my mother since she was a kid always had some sort of fullfiled premonitions/visions of sorts, even if she is a pretty skeptical person most of the time. So, even when I am a scientist (I am doing a PHD Physics) I have to admit there's stuff I can't explain. So I believe in God, but a God which is not agaisnt science, but instead a God who created Nature as we know it today. In other words, my beliefs don't fit any religion exactly, either.

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

ETA: One example of my mother "visions". My mother was born in Spain but she and her parents (my grandparents) moved to Uruguay with since she was 4. So her grandparents were in Spain. At one moment when she was 5 or 6, they hadn't news from his grandfather for a while. This day she dreamed of her grandfather telling her not to be scared because he was dead, and saying he had came to say goodbye to her. Some days later, they received a letter that her grandfather was indeed dead and he died the same day my mother had that dream.
Also a friend of mine who works in Physics as well, told me she had a similar experience when she was a child. She dreamed her grandfather was laying in a box, and she and her parents had to go to see him in the family car, and it was a rainy day, and her father had to stop the car suddenly to avoid running over a woman in the street. When she told her mother of her dream, she dismissed it as a nightmare and she said she had added more years to her grandfather by dreaming that. (That's a common saying in Argentina, where my friend lives). However, a few days later her granfather died unexpectedly of a heart attack, and the day of the funeral was rainy and when they were going in the family car her father had to stop the car because a woman crossed them, to avoid running over her.
(I hope my English made sense, because I wrote this quickly)

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

It does. Those are some amazing stories, Estrella! Our family has heaps of stories like that. So many times I've heard my family members say something and I turn to talk to them about it, only for them to say to me that they didn't *say* anything, but they were *thinking* it. I think it makes evolutionary sense to be psychic like that. It gives an advantage in the wild for obvious reasons - why couldn't it be so?

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

Yes, I experienced things like that too. Like calling my husband in the phone just the same moment he is calling me (getting a busy line, just to realize at the end both were calling each other at the same time), or saying something at the same time my husband or my mother or my sister says it. Also starting to sing a song my sister was thinking about, etc.
:)

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Hehehe. Life is weird! :D

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

Also I think animals (or at least cats) have a fifth sense when it comes to our emotions. When my father died in 2003 I was so depressed and I remember, Betty, one of my mother in law cats (a siamese) jumped to my lap and touched my face with her paw without the claws out, as if she was trying to confort me.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

I think you mean sixth sense. They already have five senses lol. (Sight, sound, taste, smell and touch).

But yes, cats are very sensitive to our emotions. They know how to read our body language very well and are tuned in to people they know. Sometimes, though, they're just downright spooky.

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

Yes, sixth sense. Cats are very especial creatures.

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

They are, very communicative and clever. My little Rogie doesn't realise she's not human, I think. She has her place in the house where she has her food and poops, and her favourite spots to sit in and her daily routine. I have to brush her teeth and trim her nails and take so much care of her, like a baby. LOL!

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

You sound like you believe in what I believe in. A natural, mind-defying God who is fucking awesome and cool that he made the world exactly how the scientists think it was. Slow evolution, all that sort of awesome thing. I think that's much more subtle and amazing. :D

I don't see science and spirituality as exclusive things.

[esicardi.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. That's exaclty the kind of God I believe in. :-)
I don't see science and spirituality as exclusive things.
Exactly, they can be complementary rather than exclusive.
:)

[berenicepotter.livejournal.com]

Good to know that, Nancy :)
I think I'm spiritual too. I mean, sometimes I think I will turn agnostic or something, but I never can. There is something that tells me to believe. And it's good to believe in something. But yeah, I really don't like going to church and stuff, and there are many things I don't agree with the religions, even the catholic.
Oh, well. I don't like to talk much about religion and politic anyways LOL

[demosthenes91.livejournal.com]

I haven't been to church in a ridiculously long time, but I still have faith. I can't really subscribe to any one religion, because I'm of the thought that religion is man's way of controlling the masses by preying on their guilt and fear while brandishing God's name. But, I do believe in Christ, I believe he died for my sins, and if I believe and repent and ask forgiveness, Kingdom of Heaven and all that jazz...

I spend Easter with my family, and then watch at least 3/4 of The Ten Commandments (which is strange, because I guess that's a more Jewish/Passover movie to watch, but it's what was always on when I was a kid).. And even tho' I bought it on DVD, I can't watch the whole thing, because, well, we never got to watch the whole thing as kids (you either missed the beginning because you were eating dinner, or you couldn't watch the end because you had school the next day).

But yeah, I'm spiritual, so I totally get where you're coming from...

*hugs*

Rambling, yes, but supportive too!</>

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Yay rambling but supportive! (How are you lately?)

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

Me, I'm a lapsed catholic agnostic going on atheist (cf this post for the long version), but I still think it sounds like the people you were talking to were unconscionably rude. Boo hiss.

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

I should hasten to add that I no longer have an issue with twice-a-year Catholicism - even the paragraph I wrote two years ago about Christmas and Easter (in the linked post) seems a little harsh to me now.

*hugs*

[logansrogue.livejournal.com]

Well, I look at it like this. God went to all the trouble of putting me on the planet in this specific situation. Why spend all the time He's blessed me with bothering Him? He wants me to live life and learn the lessons I came here for. I figure those twice a year moments (though I also think about Him during Pagan holidays too) are enough to touch base, remember my spirituality and keep on track, being a good person and doing what I can to grow within.

Of course, I say 'He' for simplicity's sake. I don't think God can fit into any definitions - words are limited. God is beyond anything we could write down, indeed, I look at the universe itself as the limitless Spirit in reflection.

Time for me to shut up now. Stupid pain medication.