> Now- having said all that- I have personally 'related' to the image (the
> ideosphere, if you will) of the christ- the liaison between suffering and
> knowledge, and have enjoyed my visits there. There seemed to be a
> validity to this doorway image of the haggard man, persecuted and near
> death, professing love, inviting everyone in.
>
> I have sung with choirs of Baptists at revivals, chanted with yogis at
> dawn, and screamed for the blood of the opposing team's first line
> forward.
>
> But while I may have felt it within definitional perogative to call any
> of these 'religious' experiences, I do not. I include all of them within
> the realm of human emotion and experience however, and do not
> differentiate. I deny them to no-one, and expect them of all.
>
> But none of them boil water.
>
I agree with you and disagree but the distinction is subtle. Again, I
see it as RELIGION vs religion. Do I need a god? To me this is
irrelevant. My experience says I have a relationship with god. What
god is (I prefer to leave sex out of the equation) is beyond my
understanding. It is the unknown. And it reveals itself to me through
many ways of understanding. I do not *do* church. Organization tends
to kill religion and create RELIGION. And I am one of the biggest
skeptics that I know about everything. So when someone tries to
interpret the bible to persuade me to do what he/she wants or someone
tries to weave an economic theory to do the same... or any number of
philosophies, psychologies, etc. I test it against that skeptical
nature.
I horse trade with all, but only spend the money I can afford to lose...
Marie