Beliefs
zenmomma *
>>For those of you who have deeply-held religious or philosophicalbeliefs, how do you approach a situation in which your child expresses a
desire to engage in an activity that runs counter to those beliefs?>>
Since this thread originally referred to books and movies, I didn't pay too
much attention to it. We seem to have found a natural balance in our house
and my kids haven't brought home anything too shocking. Yet. When and if
they do, my dh and I are very open to letting them explore or exploring with
them.
In looking at this quote again this morning, though, I realized that we
*are* dealing with this very thing right now. Conor has always been
fascinated with guns. He's NOT violent. He's NOT aggressive. He cries if he
accidentally kills a bug. But he has always wanted to play shooting games,
whether it's water guns, nerf guns, video games, whatever. He can tell you
how they work, all the different types, when they were used in which war,
etc. He's done his "homework". ;-)
Now that he's getting older, though, his interests are getting older too.
Nerf guns ain't cutting it anymore and he wants a BB gun or a paintball gun.
Dh and I are HUGE pacifists and have been really pushing ourselves to help
him with this interest, but it's getting harder. :-/ Right now we're all
discussing the paintball gun idea and how safe those paintball arenas are. I
also want him to get a gun safety course and shoot a real gun to feel the
power, and danger, it holds.
I guess my point is that I could have denied him any access to any of this.
But I didn't. I DO trust him. I DO trust his intent. But in the meantime, as
his parent, I WILL make sure he's approaching this safely and I will
continue to discuss it all with his every step of the way.
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/03 6:37:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
with "God"? I ask because I have never seen the term "God" used in it's
definition. Judie also said she believes in such a being. But that is only one
school of thought, there are those who even go so far as to believe we are all
God. My point being, that just because we may not recognize a school of thought,
belief system, philosophy or religion does not negate its validity to whomever
it serves.
although I do not know Judie's belief specifically, there are those who believe that
we are each "God", or an extension of the "Universal Soul" in which case if
that is what Judie believes she then fits your criteria of what predestination
is.
"hearing of" or "knowing about" any religion or such does not make it invalid, it
simply means we don't know.
perspective, but it remains true that it is not everyones perspective. I used the
terms evidence and fact, because Sandra used the word validity. The fact that
those are scientific terms is also about perspective, along with the separating
spirituality from science. Not everyone sees them as separate. Not everyone
believes the same facts or the same evidence, if that were true, no one would
wonder if O.J. did it. There would be no need to defend anything if those who were
using inapplicable words would be clear about their intent and didn't seem to
intend on offending.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> Predestination is the belief that ones destiny is predetermined by God (or*** Which dictionary states that the term "Predestination" has anything to do
> some divine being).
>
with "God"? I ask because I have never seen the term "God" used in it's
definition. Judie also said she believes in such a being. But that is only one
school of thought, there are those who even go so far as to believe we are all
God. My point being, that just because we may not recognize a school of thought,
belief system, philosophy or religion does not negate its validity to whomever
it serves.
> Judie's belief is that people are choosing before being born the*** You asked Judie specifically how far that belief extends? Because
> experiences
> they'll have on Earth.
>
although I do not know Judie's belief specifically, there are those who believe that
we are each "God", or an extension of the "Universal Soul" in which case if
that is what Judie believes she then fits your criteria of what predestination
is.
> I've never heard of that before in any traditional religions I'm familiar*** But that is my point, you, me, Sandra, Judie or any other being not
> with.
>
"hearing of" or "knowing about" any religion or such does not make it invalid, it
simply means we don't know.
> >Validity is based on fact or (keyword being OR) evidence.*** Then maybe you can tell me what I think or what she meant?
>
> Sandra said it "doesn't have any historical or moral validity as far as I
> know or can imagine." She's not saying what you think she's saying.
>
> The way you're using "valididity" and "fact" and "evidence" are the wayActually that is your perspective, which may very well be a majority
> they're used in scientific reasoning. They have precise definitions because
> science needs to be cautious about what it stamps as "fact" and "evidence".
>
> But spiritual beliefs are beyond the realm of science. Why be defensive that
> words can't be applied to something they aren't intended to apply to.
>
perspective, but it remains true that it is not everyones perspective. I used the
terms evidence and fact, because Sandra used the word validity. The fact that
those are scientific terms is also about perspective, along with the separating
spirituality from science. Not everyone sees them as separate. Not everyone
believes the same facts or the same evidence, if that were true, no one would
wonder if O.J. did it. There would be no need to defend anything if those who were
using inapplicable words would be clear about their intent and didn't seem to
intend on offending.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/2003 8:09:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
*** But that is my point, you, me, Sandra, Judie or any other being not
"hearing of" or "knowing about" any religion or such does not make it
invalid, it
simply means we don't know.
Then tell me.
If you say something exists, show me. Don't just say "Your not knowing
doesn't make it false." Tell me what makes it true.
There are a lot of things I don't know. There are some things I DO know,
though, and one is quite a bit of history of "Earth religions."
I know nothing of religions on other planets except some of the new age seven
planes stuff (which I consider to be nonsense, though I've been hearing about
it since 1968, courtesy of Jacqui Littlejohn) and the Mormon's ideas of other
worlds.
Those are both Earth religions, though, by today's definition of "Earth
religion."
Is there a religion that says that people themselves cut deals with others
before birth to decide what relationships they will act out in the coming
lifetime? It's not Buddhist nor Hindu belief, and they're the two major
reincarnation-believing religions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
*** But that is my point, you, me, Sandra, Judie or any other being not
"hearing of" or "knowing about" any religion or such does not make it
invalid, it
simply means we don't know.
Then tell me.
If you say something exists, show me. Don't just say "Your not knowing
doesn't make it false." Tell me what makes it true.
There are a lot of things I don't know. There are some things I DO know,
though, and one is quite a bit of history of "Earth religions."
I know nothing of religions on other planets except some of the new age seven
planes stuff (which I consider to be nonsense, though I've been hearing about
it since 1968, courtesy of Jacqui Littlejohn) and the Mormon's ideas of other
worlds.
Those are both Earth religions, though, by today's definition of "Earth
religion."
Is there a religion that says that people themselves cut deals with others
before birth to decide what relationships they will act out in the coming
lifetime? It's not Buddhist nor Hindu belief, and they're the two major
reincarnation-believing religions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/03 7:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
anything, you want me to prove it to you. If that were so easy and so possible,
we would all have the same beliefs. However that is not how we exist today in
this plane. There is no way for me to prove what is truth to you, that is each
of our responsibilities to ourselves. I can't say, "hey Sandra, last night i
met you when I astrally traveled to New Mexico" and have that be your truth.
It could be mine, it could be both of ours where I recall it and you don't, it
could be we both recall it, in which case the truths would match and we could
easily agree. Then there are the times when both parties participate in the
same existence and yet one recognizes it as truth, while the other party
recognizes it and still wants to deny it.
I'll give you an example:
I have been able to leave my body since I was a very small child. I could go
places, see people and completely experience what they were. I learned quickly
to keep those times to myself, why? For no other reason than it makes people
uncomfortable about something they do not believe can happen or are afraid of
the consequences of believing in such things. People who are extremely close
to me know that I have that ability and some have even "tested" me. Then when I
am able to explain exactly what I saw and what they experienced I have gotten
the gamut of responses. Everything from "Did you have a hidden camera?", to
"Are you doing witchcraft? to "Wow that was cool can you do it again?" Each and
every time there was no question about what I experienced with them, but
there was a question as to their ability to accept it.
So while I can't believe that I just shared my flights with this list and I'm
sure freaked some out, I see this argument about Judies beliefs much the same
way. No one can make each of our "truths". So for people like me there can be
many truths, not everything has to be black and white.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Then tell me.Perhaps this is where the real problem lies, you don't want me to tell you
>
> If you say something exists, show me. Don't just say "Your not knowing
> doesn't make it false." Tell me what makes it true.
>
anything, you want me to prove it to you. If that were so easy and so possible,
we would all have the same beliefs. However that is not how we exist today in
this plane. There is no way for me to prove what is truth to you, that is each
of our responsibilities to ourselves. I can't say, "hey Sandra, last night i
met you when I astrally traveled to New Mexico" and have that be your truth.
It could be mine, it could be both of ours where I recall it and you don't, it
could be we both recall it, in which case the truths would match and we could
easily agree. Then there are the times when both parties participate in the
same existence and yet one recognizes it as truth, while the other party
recognizes it and still wants to deny it.
I'll give you an example:
I have been able to leave my body since I was a very small child. I could go
places, see people and completely experience what they were. I learned quickly
to keep those times to myself, why? For no other reason than it makes people
uncomfortable about something they do not believe can happen or are afraid of
the consequences of believing in such things. People who are extremely close
to me know that I have that ability and some have even "tested" me. Then when I
am able to explain exactly what I saw and what they experienced I have gotten
the gamut of responses. Everything from "Did you have a hidden camera?", to
"Are you doing witchcraft? to "Wow that was cool can you do it again?" Each and
every time there was no question about what I experienced with them, but
there was a question as to their ability to accept it.
So while I can't believe that I just shared my flights with this list and I'm
sure freaked some out, I see this argument about Judies beliefs much the same
way. No one can make each of our "truths". So for people like me there can be
many truths, not everything has to be black and white.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/03 7:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
part of their belief systems, what I said in my post was that there are "sects"
of many religions that do accept predestination as a part of their system.
There would be no way to dissect all the religions of the world (or any other
;-) ). There's something like 40 thousand different sects to Christianity, so
who knows what religion solely believes in one way and only one way. Some are
far more fundamental than others, but there will always be dissenters.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> It's not Buddhist nor Hindu belief, and they're the two majorOoops, I forgot to reply that while it may not be foundationally known as a
> reincarnation-believing religions.
>
part of their belief systems, what I said in my post was that there are "sects"
of many religions that do accept predestination as a part of their system.
There would be no way to dissect all the religions of the world (or any other
;-) ). There's something like 40 thousand different sects to Christianity, so
who knows what religion solely believes in one way and only one way. Some are
far more fundamental than others, but there will always be dissenters.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/2003 8:45:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
Perhaps this is where the real problem lies, you don't want me to tell you
anything, you want me to prove it to you.
Please don't tell me what I want.
I'm asking for the origin of the belief that was being described.
You didn't invent the idea of astral travel, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
The idea that one shouldn't have to feel sorry for someone who's been raped
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
defensiveness.
The person who claimed those beliefs has left the list rather than defend
herself.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone, her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious. Shaky.
Just because there's more than one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
Perhaps this is where the real problem lies, you don't want me to tell you
anything, you want me to prove it to you.
Please don't tell me what I want.
I'm asking for the origin of the belief that was being described.
You didn't invent the idea of astral travel, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
The idea that one shouldn't have to feel sorry for someone who's been raped
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
defensiveness.
The person who claimed those beliefs has left the list rather than defend
herself.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone, her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious. Shaky.
Just because there's more than one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
aimee_tullos
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
time or energy (or wit, most days!) to keep up with you all the time!
Sandra, to you, though, I just gotta say that you crack me up and
inspire me both, even when I flatly disagree with you, which has been
rare. You've got chutzpah and cajones. Keep it up, girl.
Aimee in TX
mom, fellow life-artist, friend, and foil to
Opie (f-1/94) and Mertz (f-5/02)
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a
fire." -- William Butler Yeats
> Just because there's more than one truth doesn't mean there's nosuch thing
> as bullshit.I really only lurk on this list because I just don't feel I have the
>
> Sandra
time or energy (or wit, most days!) to keep up with you all the time!
Sandra, to you, though, I just gotta say that you crack me up and
inspire me both, even when I flatly disagree with you, which has been
rare. You've got chutzpah and cajones. Keep it up, girl.
Aimee in TX
mom, fellow life-artist, friend, and foil to
Opie (f-1/94) and Mertz (f-5/02)
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a
fire." -- William Butler Yeats
[email protected]
I'm asking for the origin of the belief that was being described.
*** Can anyone give the origin of any belief system and have that be the tell
all end all? Many people believe the Earth was created in seven days
according to a book they read, does that make it true. What is the origin of the bible
and does knowing it's origin make it true or not? I don't claim to know the
origins of all my beliefs, only that I recognize what I know to be true, to me
and don't require it to be validated by someone's writing about it somewhere.
You didn't invent the idea of astral travel, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
*** I neither claimed to invent astral travel nor imply that it harms anyone.
Only that for me, I know it to exist and to be able to utilize it.
The idea that one shouldn't have to feel sorry for someone who's been raped
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent
are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
defensiveness.
*** No, I have repeatedly responded that your not "hearing" of such does not
negate the existence of such beliefs. As for defensiveness, perhaps if your
posts came across less offensive, the responses would seem less defensive. I'm
not really sure. Each of us has to determine what to offend and defend. It's
odd though when the word defense is used as though it alone were a bad thing.
For defense can only exist in the realm where offense has occured.
The person who claimed those beliefs has left the list rather than defend
herself.
** That's unfortunate, but perhaps that was the extent of her lesson. She
came here and learned what she needed and left.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone,
her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
*** This is where we disagree. So the schizophrenic has as much validity as
the person in the white coat. They just don't agree which belief is the "right"
one, but then again there is the belief that there doesn't have to be a right
one.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
*** Yes, there are those people and then there are those so ingrained in
refusal to accept any way other than their own way as "the" way. Equally sad to me
who says to each their own way.
Just because there's more than one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit.
Sandra
** Ahh we're going here again...but one man's bullshit is another man's
truth. Since Judie left and no one else seems much interested, can we get back to
unschooling?
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
*** Can anyone give the origin of any belief system and have that be the tell
all end all? Many people believe the Earth was created in seven days
according to a book they read, does that make it true. What is the origin of the bible
and does knowing it's origin make it true or not? I don't claim to know the
origins of all my beliefs, only that I recognize what I know to be true, to me
and don't require it to be validated by someone's writing about it somewhere.
You didn't invent the idea of astral travel, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
*** I neither claimed to invent astral travel nor imply that it harms anyone.
Only that for me, I know it to exist and to be able to utilize it.
The idea that one shouldn't have to feel sorry for someone who's been raped
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent
are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
defensiveness.
*** No, I have repeatedly responded that your not "hearing" of such does not
negate the existence of such beliefs. As for defensiveness, perhaps if your
posts came across less offensive, the responses would seem less defensive. I'm
not really sure. Each of us has to determine what to offend and defend. It's
odd though when the word defense is used as though it alone were a bad thing.
For defense can only exist in the realm where offense has occured.
The person who claimed those beliefs has left the list rather than defend
herself.
** That's unfortunate, but perhaps that was the extent of her lesson. She
came here and learned what she needed and left.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone,
her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
*** This is where we disagree. So the schizophrenic has as much validity as
the person in the white coat. They just don't agree which belief is the "right"
one, but then again there is the belief that there doesn't have to be a right
one.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
*** Yes, there are those people and then there are those so ingrained in
refusal to accept any way other than their own way as "the" way. Equally sad to me
who says to each their own way.
Just because there's more than one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit.
Sandra
** Ahh we're going here again...but one man's bullshit is another man's
truth. Since Judie left and no one else seems much interested, can we get back to
unschooling?
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/2003 10:53:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
can we get back to
unschooling?
I kinda fear to discuss unschooling with people who have think bullshit is as
valid as earth-based truth, or that schizophrenics' views are as good as
those of doctors'.
If unschooling is as good as unschooling, why discuss unschooling?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
can we get back to
unschooling?
I kinda fear to discuss unschooling with people who have think bullshit is as
valid as earth-based truth, or that schizophrenics' views are as good as
those of doctors'.
If unschooling is as good as unschooling, why discuss unschooling?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 09:52 PM, RJHill241@... wrote:
this. Not just that there must be some sect of some religion somewhere
that does - but what IS it? What IS the religion that believes that
both the rapist and his victim chose to do that - before they were born
- and that we should not feel bad for someone who has been victimized
because they CHOSE that themselves?
You said there are lots of religions or sects of religions that believe
this - is that where you got the idea? Can you clue us in on the origin
of this belief? Give us somewhere we can read about the historical
origins of it?
If there isn't one you can name, if you came up with it yourself,
that's an answer, too, so say that. Nothing says that you're wrong,
just because you are the origin, but all that Sandra is saying is that
to the best of her knowledge there is no religion that teaches that
particular belief.
If she's wrong - then tell her which it is and where to find the info.
-pam
> No, I have repeatedly responded that your not "hearing" of such doesRhonda - she's asking you to say what religion it is that believes
> not
> negate the existence of such beliefs.
this. Not just that there must be some sect of some religion somewhere
that does - but what IS it? What IS the religion that believes that
both the rapist and his victim chose to do that - before they were born
- and that we should not feel bad for someone who has been victimized
because they CHOSE that themselves?
You said there are lots of religions or sects of religions that believe
this - is that where you got the idea? Can you clue us in on the origin
of this belief? Give us somewhere we can read about the historical
origins of it?
If there isn't one you can name, if you came up with it yourself,
that's an answer, too, so say that. Nothing says that you're wrong,
just because you are the origin, but all that Sandra is saying is that
to the best of her knowledge there is no religion that teaches that
particular belief.
If she's wrong - then tell her which it is and where to find the info.
-pam
[email protected]
Pam,
The very first paragraph from my last post addressed my own beliefs.
As for needing evidence that such a theory exists, if one were to google:
theory of predestination, predestination or predestination in religions, a vrtual
plethera of sites come up.
If this belief were non-existant and only lived in the world of Judie (whom I
don't know by the way) and Rhonda, then why are there so many sites of debate
on the matter?
I've understood Sandra, we simply don't agree. I also stated I don't require
written evidence to know what I know to be true for me. If Sandra can't accept
that, then so be it. But if Sandra truly wishes to know more than I have
written, she can look it up.
Maybe since you seem to know what she means, you can tell me why she is so
stuck on this topic, afterall, is it unschooling? Why can't we let it go that we
disagree and each move on? For everyone's sake we really should.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The very first paragraph from my last post addressed my own beliefs.
As for needing evidence that such a theory exists, if one were to google:
theory of predestination, predestination or predestination in religions, a vrtual
plethera of sites come up.
If this belief were non-existant and only lived in the world of Judie (whom I
don't know by the way) and Rhonda, then why are there so many sites of debate
on the matter?
I've understood Sandra, we simply don't agree. I also stated I don't require
written evidence to know what I know to be true for me. If Sandra can't accept
that, then so be it. But if Sandra truly wishes to know more than I have
written, she can look it up.
Maybe since you seem to know what she means, you can tell me why she is so
stuck on this topic, afterall, is it unschooling? Why can't we let it go that we
disagree and each move on? For everyone's sake we really should.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/03 10:00:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
what happens when you don't like the answer? Does this mean you do not intend
to participate on the list because I am on it and we disagree on belief
systems? Or does that mean I should feel obligated to leave so that you won't have
such fears? Doubtful, rather you'd prefer to use your words to do smart-assed
one liners? Hmmmm, funny I just read an article where the author proclaimed one
should be careful with words, they have the power to cause harm...maybe I
should forward it to you, oh wait, you wrote it. Bullshit, maybe?
I won't repeat myself anymore on this thread. If someone missed something
please look up the archives, don't ask me to re-explain because Sandra didn't get
it or you assume I didn't get her. We simply aren't on the same page, but I
don't need to be. I'm done. I will not post to this thread again.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> I kinda fear to discuss unschooling with people who have think bullshit isBut this is a list of people with ideas to share and beliefs questioned, but
> as
> valid as earth-based truth, or that schizophrenics' views are as good as
> those of doctors'.
>
> If unschooling is as good as unschooling, why discuss unschooling?
>
> Sandra
>
what happens when you don't like the answer? Does this mean you do not intend
to participate on the list because I am on it and we disagree on belief
systems? Or does that mean I should feel obligated to leave so that you won't have
such fears? Doubtful, rather you'd prefer to use your words to do smart-assed
one liners? Hmmmm, funny I just read an article where the author proclaimed one
should be careful with words, they have the power to cause harm...maybe I
should forward it to you, oh wait, you wrote it. Bullshit, maybe?
I won't repeat myself anymore on this thread. If someone missed something
please look up the archives, don't ask me to re-explain because Sandra didn't get
it or you assume I didn't get her. We simply aren't on the same page, but I
don't need to be. I'm done. I will not post to this thread again.
Rhonda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
I did that, Rhonda. I spent an hour searching, found lots of
predestination, but couldn't find any religion that taught anything
like that people had themselves chosen to be rape victims and so we
shouldn't care about how they feel. Please point us to one.
-pam
predestination, but couldn't find any religion that taught anything
like that people had themselves chosen to be rape victims and so we
shouldn't care about how they feel. Please point us to one.
-pam
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 11:16 PM, RJHill241@... wrote:
> As for needing evidence that such a theory exists, if one were to
> google:
> theory of predestination, predestination or predestination in
> religions, a vrtual
> plethera of sites come up.
Robyn Coburn
<<Rhonda - she's asking you to say what religion it is that believes
this. Not just that there must be some sect of some religion somewhere
that does - but what IS it? What IS the religion that believes that
both the rapist and his victim chose to do that - before they were born
- and that we should not feel bad for someone who has been victimized
because they CHOSE that themselves?>>
When I first read Judie's philosophy, it sounded strikingly like that
expounded by author Sylvia Browne, in her book "Life on the Other Side:
A Psychic's Tour of the Afterlife". I think she talks about it in other
books also, but this is the only one that I have read. It was given to
me by my recently widowed mother-in-law, and was undoubtedly of great
comfort to her. Browne presents her beliefs as information from a spirit
guide, and explains that there are souls who are inherently dark and
evil, who at death are immediately returned through a portal to this
plane of existence to continue their evil in the world - lost souls who
are also searched for by the higher evolved beings who strive what may
be an eternal battle for these individuals' enlightenment. Evidently
they (ie the dark souls) act without the benefit of determining which
spiritual lessons they will seeking to learn this time around. I guess
they are the rapists etc. Browne also believes that we each have three
predetermined exit points and may choose to leave at any of them on the
spur of the moment - other than the final one of course. She asserts
that only the most enlightened of spirits choose to have what seem
horrendous fates, because they have a higher purpose for other folk in
their spiritual journeys.
I don't wish to argue with anyone about their spiritual beliefs. I only
mention this author to suggest that it is not a religion, per se, but
more of a conglomeration of some New Age philosophies.
Robyn Coburn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
this. Not just that there must be some sect of some religion somewhere
that does - but what IS it? What IS the religion that believes that
both the rapist and his victim chose to do that - before they were born
- and that we should not feel bad for someone who has been victimized
because they CHOSE that themselves?>>
When I first read Judie's philosophy, it sounded strikingly like that
expounded by author Sylvia Browne, in her book "Life on the Other Side:
A Psychic's Tour of the Afterlife". I think she talks about it in other
books also, but this is the only one that I have read. It was given to
me by my recently widowed mother-in-law, and was undoubtedly of great
comfort to her. Browne presents her beliefs as information from a spirit
guide, and explains that there are souls who are inherently dark and
evil, who at death are immediately returned through a portal to this
plane of existence to continue their evil in the world - lost souls who
are also searched for by the higher evolved beings who strive what may
be an eternal battle for these individuals' enlightenment. Evidently
they (ie the dark souls) act without the benefit of determining which
spiritual lessons they will seeking to learn this time around. I guess
they are the rapists etc. Browne also believes that we each have three
predetermined exit points and may choose to leave at any of them on the
spur of the moment - other than the final one of course. She asserts
that only the most enlightened of spirits choose to have what seem
horrendous fates, because they have a higher purpose for other folk in
their spiritual journeys.
I don't wish to argue with anyone about their spiritual beliefs. I only
mention this author to suggest that it is not a religion, per se, but
more of a conglomeration of some New Age philosophies.
Robyn Coburn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 9/19/03 10:07 PM, RJHill241@... at RJHill241@... wrote:
Here's an online dictionary that mentions it:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/predestination
And a quote from John Calvin himself: "God preordained...a part of the human
race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another
part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation."
There's a good description of Calvinism at:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm
I don't know what other Christian denominations hold that belief but one
page said "While retained in the creeds of several denominations, in the
public teaching of the churches the doctrine of predestination. has lost its
place and power." I know many fundamentalists hold Calvinistic beliefs. I've
heard some mention predestination and Google turns up pages that make it
seem like the belief is alive and well.
Here's what she said:
does historical validity make something true.) But you claimed Judie's did
have historical and moral validity. So what religions or belief systems is
it based on?
birth we determine our path on Earth? What religion is that?
beyond their definition and still expect them to have the same worth.
You can't use the word evidence and fact to mean belief in something and
then expect it to hold the same power of "proof" as the stricter scientific
defintions of those words. Soft definitions of evidence and fact will yield
soft proofs.
Facts are not something one believes or not believes in. They're bits of
reality. A fact can be a list from the phone company of phone numbers dialed
from a particular phone number. It can be the bullet recovered from a body.
Evidence is bits of reality that suggest a conclusion. From the dictionary
at Lawyers.com: Evidence is "something (as testimony, writings, or objects)
presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of
establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact." From the
facts and evidence, people will identify patterns. Then they will come up
with a theory (conclusion) that explains why those patterns exist. But a
good theory has to explain *all* the data, not just the supporting pieces
someone picks out of it.
In trials it's expected that theories won't explain everything and that
there will be some contradictory evidence. That's why juries are instructed
to reach a verdict that is free from *reasonable* doubt.
In science scientists -- and the peers who review their data and theories --
are well aware of where their theories don't cover all the data. But they
can't throw away data they can't explain or data that refutes their theory.
They work to refine their theories with the goal of explaining all the data
and work on better ways to gather more accurate data so their theory can
explain it all. They aren't under the same time constraints that juries are.
They can spend years gathering data to support or refute a theory.
The things you're discussing: religion, predestination, astral projection
are beyond what science can investigate. That doesn't mean they are untrue.
It's just that the words "facts" and "evidence" and "proof" don't accurately
describe what people are using to support the theories that these things
exist.
came from. Is it based in some historical religion? Is it totally Judie's
idea?
Neither makes an idea more true but a belief system held by millions over
hundreds of years at least has lots of people examining and experiencing it
from many perspectives. The parts that conflict with reality are going to
get weeded out. Most people now adays don't believe in the Egyptian gods but
the Egyptian system of belief explained the observations they had of their
lives in that time and place. It is elaborate beyond their reality --
nothing told them a god was named Osiris -- but the elaborations didn't
conflict with reality -- nothing in reality said it wasn't.
A belief system held by one person only has one person examining it from one
perspective.
Something can actually be valid without it being true. As long as it's
consistent with a belief system, then something is valid *within that belief
system*. A schizophrenic's view of the world is "valid" within themselves
but they're residing in a world of people who don't see what they see.
People can get philosophical about what is reality but if someone sees a
child being beaten and their "vision of reality" leads them to believe
that's the child's chosen path, then they're having a negative effect on
society. Their "valid" belief is harmful to others.
Joyce
> Which dictionary states that the term "Predestination" has anything to doIt's one of the basic tenets of Calvinism.
> with "God"? I ask because I have never seen the term "God" used in it's
> definition.
Here's an online dictionary that mentions it:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/predestination
And a quote from John Calvin himself: "God preordained...a part of the human
race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another
part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation."
There's a good description of Calvinism at:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm
I don't know what other Christian denominations hold that belief but one
page said "While retained in the creeds of several denominations, in the
public teaching of the churches the doctrine of predestination. has lost its
place and power." I know many fundamentalists hold Calvinistic beliefs. I've
heard some mention predestination and Google turns up pages that make it
seem like the belief is alive and well.
> Judie also said she believes in such a being.But no divine being was involved in Judie's definition of predestination.
Here's what she said:
>> My personal belief is that before we are born into this life, weBut you implied that you *did* know here:
>> choose the kind of life we will live. We choose our parents, choose
>> the circumstances of our lives, etc. based upon the lessons we need
>> to learn to perfect our souls. Sometimes we choose really hard
>> subject matter because it involves a lesson we need to learn.
>> Sometimes we choose to be mugged, sometimes we choose to be the
>> mugger. Either way, an important lesson went along with that
>> experience. Every earthly experience involves learning a spiritual
>> lesson.
> But that is my point, you, me, Sandra, Judie or any other being not "hearing
> of" or "knowing about" any religion or such does not make it invalid, it
> simply means we don't know.
> I ask because I am somewhat shocked that you don't realize that there is bothA belief doesn't need to have historial or moral validity to be true. (Nor
> historical and moral validity to this belief system. While one may not agree
> with the premise of such a system, to state that it lacks any historic premise
> is not only an invalid statement, but shows complete ignorance of belief
> systems shared by many. The fact that you seem to be stating there is lack of
> evidence for such a system to exist, as opposed to asking for sources or
> simply stating you disagree, seems to make it read as though your statements
> are factual when in actuality they are opinion.
does historical validity make something true.) But you claimed Judie's did
have historical and moral validity. So what religions or belief systems is
it based on?
> You asked Judie specifically how far that belief extends? Because although ISo this religion or religions you know of believes we're each God and before
> do not know Judie's belief specifically, there are those who believe that we
> are each "God", or an extension of the "Universal Soul" in which case if that
> is what Judie believes she then fits your criteria of what predestination is.
birth we determine our path on Earth? What religion is that?
> The fact that those are scientific terms is also about perspective, along withNo, what I'm saying is you can't stretch the meaning of scientific terms
> the separating spirituality from science. Not everyone sees them as separate.
beyond their definition and still expect them to have the same worth.
You can't use the word evidence and fact to mean belief in something and
then expect it to hold the same power of "proof" as the stricter scientific
defintions of those words. Soft definitions of evidence and fact will yield
soft proofs.
> Not everyone believes the same facts or the same evidence, if that were true,You're confusing evidence and facts with the conclusions based on those.
> no one would wonder if O.J. did it.
Facts are not something one believes or not believes in. They're bits of
reality. A fact can be a list from the phone company of phone numbers dialed
from a particular phone number. It can be the bullet recovered from a body.
Evidence is bits of reality that suggest a conclusion. From the dictionary
at Lawyers.com: Evidence is "something (as testimony, writings, or objects)
presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of
establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact." From the
facts and evidence, people will identify patterns. Then they will come up
with a theory (conclusion) that explains why those patterns exist. But a
good theory has to explain *all* the data, not just the supporting pieces
someone picks out of it.
In trials it's expected that theories won't explain everything and that
there will be some contradictory evidence. That's why juries are instructed
to reach a verdict that is free from *reasonable* doubt.
In science scientists -- and the peers who review their data and theories --
are well aware of where their theories don't cover all the data. But they
can't throw away data they can't explain or data that refutes their theory.
They work to refine their theories with the goal of explaining all the data
and work on better ways to gather more accurate data so their theory can
explain it all. They aren't under the same time constraints that juries are.
They can spend years gathering data to support or refute a theory.
The things you're discussing: religion, predestination, astral projection
are beyond what science can investigate. That doesn't mean they are untrue.
It's just that the words "facts" and "evidence" and "proof" don't accurately
describe what people are using to support the theories that these things
exist.
> There would be no need to defend anythingSandra used the words correctly. She was just asking *where* that belief
> if those who were using inapplicable words would be clear about their intent
> and didn't seem to intend on offending.
came from. Is it based in some historical religion? Is it totally Judie's
idea?
Neither makes an idea more true but a belief system held by millions over
hundreds of years at least has lots of people examining and experiencing it
from many perspectives. The parts that conflict with reality are going to
get weeded out. Most people now adays don't believe in the Egyptian gods but
the Egyptian system of belief explained the observations they had of their
lives in that time and place. It is elaborate beyond their reality --
nothing told them a god was named Osiris -- but the elaborations didn't
conflict with reality -- nothing in reality said it wasn't.
A belief system held by one person only has one person examining it from one
perspective.
Something can actually be valid without it being true. As long as it's
consistent with a belief system, then something is valid *within that belief
system*. A schizophrenic's view of the world is "valid" within themselves
but they're residing in a world of people who don't see what they see.
People can get philosophical about what is reality but if someone sees a
child being beaten and their "vision of reality" leads them to believe
that's the child's chosen path, then they're having a negative effect on
society. Their "valid" belief is harmful to others.
> Ooops, I forgot to reply that while it may not be foundationally known as aNo need to name them all. Just point us towards the ones you know about. :-)
> part of their belief systems, what I said in my post was that there are
> "sects"
> of many religions that do accept predestination as a part of their system.
> There would be no way to dissect all the religions of the world (or any other
> ;-) ). There's something like 40 thousand different sects to Christianity, so
> who knows what religion solely believes in one way and only one way. Some are
> far more fundamental than others, but there will always be dissenters.
Joyce
Fetteroll
on 9/20/03 2:16 AM, RJHill241@... at RJHill241@... wrote:
to others. She has a belief system that could justify ignoring the hurt
someone else is going through. It could justify a mom not changing because
her child's pain is the pain the child chose to have.
Lots of conventional parenting practices seem to make sense from an adult
point of view. But not when we look at them from the child's understanding
of the world. If someone's belief system is that the child chose to be
dominated by adults, what reason is there to try something better?
A belief that we've chosen the pain we'll suffer in life isn't a good basis
to help people to grow and change from.
Joyce
> Maybe since you seem to know what she means, you can tell me why she is soI'm glad she held it up to examine it because Judie was here offering advice
> stuck on this topic, afterall, is it unschooling? Why can't we let it go that
> we
> disagree and each move on? For everyone's sake we really should.
to others. She has a belief system that could justify ignoring the hurt
someone else is going through. It could justify a mom not changing because
her child's pain is the pain the child chose to have.
Lots of conventional parenting practices seem to make sense from an adult
point of view. But not when we look at them from the child's understanding
of the world. If someone's belief system is that the child chose to be
dominated by adults, what reason is there to try something better?
A belief that we've chosen the pain we'll suffer in life isn't a good basis
to help people to grow and change from.
Joyce
joanna514
>others
> Is there a religion that says that people themselves cut deals with
> before birth to decide what relationships they will act out in thecoming
> lifetime? It's not Buddhist nor Hindu belief, and they're the twomajor
> reincarnation-believing religions."Conversations with God" Neale Donald Walsch
>
>
>
> Sandra
>
When Sam died, my cousin, who is very into an organization called
Omega, gave me a bin full of books that he thought may help me with
my grief. The books covered many different beliefs of "what it's all
about". I would consider it New Age type stuff.
I had already read the 1st couple of chapters of Conversations with
God years earlier but never finished. I wasn't a searching type
person, and while I thought it was interesting, I never did finish.
The concepts being discussed here, remind me a lot of that book and
some of the other books in the bin.
Joanna
joanna514
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
discussed here, but I have read a little.
Sandra, I can only compare your attitude towards them as to those who
come to unschooling with their school thoughts, and start arguing
against it.
No one has said compassion is lacking in these beliefs.
But compassion can be for all. Yes, even the rapist.
Just because someone accepts pedestination, doesn't mean they would
turn an abused spouse away, or any of the other example you have
given. From what I have read of these beliefs,growth of the soul
happens by learning how to make yourself and the world around you
better.
Unschooling is a truth we have all found.
I don't know if I believe it was something we all chose before we
were born. It's an interesting thought to me though.
Sometimes I feel we are on a higher spiritual level than the masses.
We (unschoolers) see "truth" easier than others.
Those are my rambling thoughts at times. Not a huge belief system.
There are those who do accpet these thoughts as their truth. I've
met some (my cousin and others). They are very compassionate and
very much into bettering themselves and their world.
Joanna
> In a message dated 9/19/2003 10:53:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,bullshit is as
> RJHill241@a... writes:
> can we get back to
> unschooling?
> I kinda fear to discuss unschooling with people who have think
> valid as earth-based truth, or that schizophrenics' views are asgood as
> those of doctors'.I don't claim to know much about the concepts that are being
>
> If unschooling is as good as unschooling, why discuss unschooling?
>
> Sandra
>
>
discussed here, but I have read a little.
Sandra, I can only compare your attitude towards them as to those who
come to unschooling with their school thoughts, and start arguing
against it.
No one has said compassion is lacking in these beliefs.
But compassion can be for all. Yes, even the rapist.
Just because someone accepts pedestination, doesn't mean they would
turn an abused spouse away, or any of the other example you have
given. From what I have read of these beliefs,growth of the soul
happens by learning how to make yourself and the world around you
better.
Unschooling is a truth we have all found.
I don't know if I believe it was something we all chose before we
were born. It's an interesting thought to me though.
Sometimes I feel we are on a higher spiritual level than the masses.
We (unschoolers) see "truth" easier than others.
Those are my rambling thoughts at times. Not a huge belief system.
There are those who do accpet these thoughts as their truth. I've
met some (my cousin and others). They are very compassionate and
very much into bettering themselves and their world.
Joanna
joanna514
--- In [email protected], pam sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
about a rape victim.
I read about not caring if our actions (that aren't causing harm,
like public breastfeeding) offend others. But did anyone ever say
they would feel no compassion for a rape victim?
Joanna
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
> I did that, Rhonda. I spent an hour searching, found lots ofOkay, I missed the post when someone claimed we don't need to care
> predestination, but couldn't find any religion that taught anything
> like that people had themselves chosen to be rape victims and so we
> shouldn't care about how they feel. Please point us to one.
>
> -pam
>
>
about a rape victim.
I read about not caring if our actions (that aren't causing harm,
like public breastfeeding) offend others. But did anyone ever say
they would feel no compassion for a rape victim?
Joanna
momto4
The idea that one shouldn't have to feel sorry for someone who's been raped
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent
are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
ee i
defensiveness.
*i think that this is based on the belief that we create our own reality and
that what our dominant vibration is attracts that into our reality. if you
are vibrating negatively, you are going to attract into your life negative
events. you know, the idea that life is a mirror - what you see is a
reflection of what's going on inside.
as far as i know, the Bible speaks of contracts and of the power we have to
create . also, i think that many of the christian mystics had similar
beliefs, as do the eastern religions. of course, this is based on what i
have read, and do not consider myself an expert in religion by any means.
you can also find these beliefs in the channelings like for example abraham
orin and seth. channeling is also not a new age belief either as it is seen
in the hindu religion and i'm certainly guessing others too.
on the subject of contracts, you may want to read caroline myss' sacred
contracts where she gives a fair bit of background about moses, abraham,
jesus, buddha and mohammed and how they fulfilled their own Divine contracts
the notion of contracts is also seen widely in many of the myths.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone,
her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
*i don't know about this. who is going to determine which belief is more
valid? how do you know that your belief or my belief is more valid? they
just are.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
*one thing i've learned is that unless we are that person walking in their
shoes we can never know where they come from or why.
marianne
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
or otherwise abused because they chose that, and that those who are violent
are
doing what they're SUPPOSED to do is NOT something I had heard, and I've
asked repeatedly for any origin or justification, but am given generalized
ee i
defensiveness.
*i think that this is based on the belief that we create our own reality and
that what our dominant vibration is attracts that into our reality. if you
are vibrating negatively, you are going to attract into your life negative
events. you know, the idea that life is a mirror - what you see is a
reflection of what's going on inside.
as far as i know, the Bible speaks of contracts and of the power we have to
create . also, i think that many of the christian mystics had similar
beliefs, as do the eastern religions. of course, this is based on what i
have read, and do not consider myself an expert in religion by any means.
you can also find these beliefs in the channelings like for example abraham
orin and seth. channeling is also not a new age belief either as it is seen
in the hindu religion and i'm certainly guessing others too.
on the subject of contracts, you may want to read caroline myss' sacred
contracts where she gives a fair bit of background about moses, abraham,
jesus, buddha and mohammed and how they fulfilled their own Divine contracts
the notion of contracts is also seen widely in many of the myths.
There are lots of beliefs, but some have more validity than others. If
someone's entirely schizophrenic and hears God telling her to kill someone,
her
"belief" isn't as valid as she might like to think.
*i don't know about this. who is going to determine which belief is more
valid? how do you know that your belief or my belief is more valid? they
just are.
Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
*one thing i've learned is that unless we are that person walking in their
shoes we can never know where they come from or why.
marianne
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 07:28 AM, joanna514 wrote:
only conclusion would be that, together with the rapist, the victim
decided for it to happen because they both wanted to learn the lesson
from it and therefore we shouldn't feel bad about their experience.
-pam
> I read about not caring if our actions (that aren't causing harm,The point was that under the belief system as she described it, the
> like public breastfeeding) offend others. But did anyone ever say
> they would feel no compassion for a rape victim?
only conclusion would be that, together with the rapist, the victim
decided for it to happen because they both wanted to learn the lesson
from it and therefore we shouldn't feel bad about their experience.
-pam
momto4
having compassion for someone and feeling bad for someone are two different
things altogether.
-------Original Message-------
From: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 09:44:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Beliefs
things altogether.
-------Original Message-------
From: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 09:44:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Beliefs
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 07:28 AM, joanna514 wrote:
> I read about not caring if our actions (that aren't causing harm,
> like public breastfeeding) offend others. But did anyone ever say
> they would feel no compassion for a rape victim?
The point was that under the belief system as she described it, the
only conclusion would be that, together with the rapist, the victim
decided for it to happen because they both wanted to learn the lesson
from it and therefore we shouldn't feel bad about their experience.
-pam
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
susan marie
My understanding of this belief is that while some soul may agree to
undergo something horrible (like being raped), it might be for a "higher
cause" - to fight the injustice, bring awareness, something like that.
An example might be John Walsh, who took a personal tragedy and has gone
from there to help others. Who knows? To oversimplify a belief can water
it down so much it doesn't make sense anymore. Dr. Brian Weiss has
written an interesting book on this - (I think) it's called "Many Lives,
Many Masters". I also don't think we can really judge or understand,
from the outside, what another person is going through. We can, however,
care, help, be there - whatever we have to give, whatever the other
person needs or can accept. When I was teaching, I interacted with lots
of teens. A couple of times, kids would come back a few years later to
thank me for something I did, something that made a difference. It
wasn't always such a big thing I did, but it was the right thing at the
right time. Sometimes it was nothing more than just listening to them.
Maybe I was just in the right place at the right time. We are in the
lives of each other for a reason. But we don't always know what that is,
sometimes we know, sometimes we know but much later.
My dh and I have a great relationship, and it is a second marriage for
both of us. Our first marriages were pretty awful (but short for both of
us). I had said the other day, I wish we had met each other first. He
agreed, but added that maybe having gone through an awful marriage, we
were better able to appreciate each other. So maybe that horrid first
marriage had some good to it afterall! Looking back, having left an
abusive situation and with no home, I had the support of family. Not
everyone has that, and I am now aware of the issues that face women who
are in an abusive situation and unlike me, have no where to go. I do
what I can to help. Did I somehow choose that life lesson? don't know,
but I do know I learned a lot, and I hope, am more compassionate because
of it. And there were people in my life at that time who made such a
difference, simply by being there. The right words, the right hug, some
little thing that made a difference.
However, to say that because a soul chose a difficult path, or a
difficult time, others should not feel compassion is, imho, an incorrect
understanding of this idea or belief. Of course we should feel
compassion, of course we should help if we can. Perhaps our compassion
is the next act, the next necessary thing to change something - how many
people's lives has John Walsh touched? Everything is so intricately
intertwined, who's to know always the "whats" or "whys". All we can do
is our best, and compassion is, to me, always part of our best. Are
things preordained? We can believe or not, but we can't know. And, to
me, it doesn't really matter. What matters is doing our best, caring
about each other. Sometimes our best is pretty good, and sometimes not.
long ramble..
(btw, joanna, I liked what you had to say on this topic.. :-).. this
post, and the previous one esp., and the thoughts on unschooling as a
path.
guess I got a little gabby here.. sorry..
have a good saturday folks,
peace,
susan
undergo something horrible (like being raped), it might be for a "higher
cause" - to fight the injustice, bring awareness, something like that.
An example might be John Walsh, who took a personal tragedy and has gone
from there to help others. Who knows? To oversimplify a belief can water
it down so much it doesn't make sense anymore. Dr. Brian Weiss has
written an interesting book on this - (I think) it's called "Many Lives,
Many Masters". I also don't think we can really judge or understand,
from the outside, what another person is going through. We can, however,
care, help, be there - whatever we have to give, whatever the other
person needs or can accept. When I was teaching, I interacted with lots
of teens. A couple of times, kids would come back a few years later to
thank me for something I did, something that made a difference. It
wasn't always such a big thing I did, but it was the right thing at the
right time. Sometimes it was nothing more than just listening to them.
Maybe I was just in the right place at the right time. We are in the
lives of each other for a reason. But we don't always know what that is,
sometimes we know, sometimes we know but much later.
My dh and I have a great relationship, and it is a second marriage for
both of us. Our first marriages were pretty awful (but short for both of
us). I had said the other day, I wish we had met each other first. He
agreed, but added that maybe having gone through an awful marriage, we
were better able to appreciate each other. So maybe that horrid first
marriage had some good to it afterall! Looking back, having left an
abusive situation and with no home, I had the support of family. Not
everyone has that, and I am now aware of the issues that face women who
are in an abusive situation and unlike me, have no where to go. I do
what I can to help. Did I somehow choose that life lesson? don't know,
but I do know I learned a lot, and I hope, am more compassionate because
of it. And there were people in my life at that time who made such a
difference, simply by being there. The right words, the right hug, some
little thing that made a difference.
However, to say that because a soul chose a difficult path, or a
difficult time, others should not feel compassion is, imho, an incorrect
understanding of this idea or belief. Of course we should feel
compassion, of course we should help if we can. Perhaps our compassion
is the next act, the next necessary thing to change something - how many
people's lives has John Walsh touched? Everything is so intricately
intertwined, who's to know always the "whats" or "whys". All we can do
is our best, and compassion is, to me, always part of our best. Are
things preordained? We can believe or not, but we can't know. And, to
me, it doesn't really matter. What matters is doing our best, caring
about each other. Sometimes our best is pretty good, and sometimes not.
long ramble..
(btw, joanna, I liked what you had to say on this topic.. :-).. this
post, and the previous one esp., and the thoughts on unschooling as a
path.
guess I got a little gabby here.. sorry..
have a good saturday folks,
peace,
susan
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 11:44 AM, pam sorooshian wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 07:28 AM, joanna514 wrote:
>
> > I read about not caring if our actions (that aren't causing harm,
> > like public breastfeeding) offend others. But did anyone ever say
> > they would feel no compassion for a rape victim?
>
> The point was that under the belief system as she described it, the
> only conclusion would be that, together with the rapist, the victim
> decided for it to happen because they both wanted to learn the lesson
> from it and therefore we shouldn't feel bad about their experience.
>
> -pam
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>and
> *i think that this is based on the belief that we create our own reality
> that what our dominant vibration is attracts that into our reality. if youI don't think so. Judie specifically said that it was all predetermined
> are vibrating negatively, you are going to attract into your life negative
> events. you know, the idea that life is a mirror - what you see is a
> reflection of what's going on inside.
before we take a body for this life. She said that whatever happens in our
life is what we already agreed to with the other people involved. I'm
inclined to believe the stuff about our vibrations or thoughts or whatever
attracting experiences into our lives (whether we are aware of them or not)
and I also think the theory of karma and reincarnation explains why things
happen at least as well as any other theory. But that's not what Judie
seemed to be talking about.
Tia
leschke@...
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where
there is no path and leave a trail."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
[email protected]
Hi - this is my first post here. I've been reading along a few weeks.
You guys are fascinating! :)
I felt moved to comment about how illuminating the Beliefs thread is
becoming, after first striking me as annoying. <g>
I perked up when the thread turned toward Joanne's post about truly
personal beliefs applied only in one's own life, not to opinions (even positive
ones) about others.
What I mean is that if a belief is used as a way to decide what others
should do or to judge others as right or wrong, then it's not really
"personal," at least not in the same sense of beliefs that are really only about my
own life.
To me any truly personal belief in personal choice or self-determination
-- like unschooling for example -- cannot rest on religious doctrine or
political proclamations of what all children and parents should believe or do, or
even what all unschoolers should believe or do.
I don't see how there can possibly be true "self-determination" that
is controlled by anyone other than the self -- not the congregation or support
group, nor the government or neighborhood, nor anyone else, from
mothers-in-law to bullies masquerading as friends to criminals like rapists and terrorists.
And I think I hear many on this list who seem to share a personal
belief about that. :) JJ
p.s. I didn't introduce myself. I am mom of two always-unschooled, extremely
individual, self-determining children charging through middle childhood with
gusto.
seanachai3@... writes:
You guys are fascinating! :)
I felt moved to comment about how illuminating the Beliefs thread is
becoming, after first striking me as annoying. <g>
I perked up when the thread turned toward Joanne's post about truly
personal beliefs applied only in one's own life, not to opinions (even positive
ones) about others.
What I mean is that if a belief is used as a way to decide what others
should do or to judge others as right or wrong, then it's not really
"personal," at least not in the same sense of beliefs that are really only about my
own life.
To me any truly personal belief in personal choice or self-determination
-- like unschooling for example -- cannot rest on religious doctrine or
political proclamations of what all children and parents should believe or do, or
even what all unschoolers should believe or do.
I don't see how there can possibly be true "self-determination" that
is controlled by anyone other than the self -- not the congregation or support
group, nor the government or neighborhood, nor anyone else, from
mothers-in-law to bullies masquerading as friends to criminals like rapists and terrorists.
And I think I hear many on this list who seem to share a personal
belief about that. :) JJ
p.s. I didn't introduce myself. I am mom of two always-unschooled, extremely
individual, self-determining children charging through middle childhood with
gusto.
seanachai3@... writes:
> Not[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> everyone has that, and I am now aware of the issues that face women who
> are in an abusive situation and unlike me, have no where to go. I do
> what I can to help. Did I somehow choose that life lesson? don't know,
> but I do know I learned a lot, and I hope, am more compassionate because
> of it. And there were people in my life at that time who made such a
> difference, simply by being there. The right words, the right hug, some
> little thing that made a difference.
>
> However, to say that because a soul chose a difficult path, or a
> difficult time, others should not feel compassion is, imho, an incorrect
> understanding of this idea or belief. Of course we should feel
> compassion, of course we should help if we can. Perhaps our compassion
> is the next act, the next necessary thing to change something - how many
> people's lives has John Walsh touched? Everything is so intricately
> intertwined, who's to know always the "whats" or "whys". All we can do
> is our best, and compassion is, to me, always part of our best. Are
> things preordained? We can believe or not, but we can't know. And, to
> me, it doesn't really matter. What matters is doing our best, caring
> about each other. Sometimes our best is pretty good, and sometimes not.
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/20/03 9:44:50 AM, amandab@... writes:
<< Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
<<*one thing i've learned is that unless we are that person walking in their
shoes we can never know where they come from or why. >>
Some of them don't know where they came from or why.
This is a discussion list based on people's words.
People choose to show us those words.
Someone who was until lately a fundamentalist Christian and now claimed she
doesn't need to feel bad for people who are abused refused to defend her
claims.
All I could see was where her shoes had been lately and where she seemed to
be pointing them, but she left rather than discuss it any more deeply.
Sandra
<< Some people's "beliefs" seem made up on the spot, or based on a
misunderstanding of something they think they heard or read. Spurious.
Shaky.
<<*one thing i've learned is that unless we are that person walking in their
shoes we can never know where they come from or why. >>
Some of them don't know where they came from or why.
This is a discussion list based on people's words.
People choose to show us those words.
Someone who was until lately a fundamentalist Christian and now claimed she
doesn't need to feel bad for people who are abused refused to defend her
claims.
All I could see was where her shoes had been lately and where she seemed to
be pointing them, but she left rather than discuss it any more deeply.
Sandra
pam sorooshian
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 11:08 AM, jrossedd@... wrote:
force children to learn something they have no interest in learning."
That means I think that it is generally wrong - for anybody. It has
personal application, in that I won't do it to my kids, but I do think
it is wrong for others too.
Thinking it is wrong doesn't mean I necessarily have any intention of
insisting on anybody else acting on my belief, of course. On the other
hand, there are some things I think are wrong enough that I'll try to
persuade people to come around to seeing it my way and there are other
beliefs that I hold strongly enough that I want to see them imposed on
everybody. (Like not blasting their music at high volumes at
campgrounds, for example <G>.)
about unschooling, but I doubt that is what you meant.
So - I'm clearly not following your point, JJ. The kinds of statements
I'm thinking of, about unschooling, are not religious or political.
What am I missing?
And - welcome!!!
-pam
>Unless the context is something like, "I think it is wrong to try to
>
> What I mean is that if a belief is used as a way to decide what
> others
> should do or to judge others as right or wrong, then it's not really
> "personal," at least not in the same sense of beliefs that are really
> only about my own life.
>
force children to learn something they have no interest in learning."
That means I think that it is generally wrong - for anybody. It has
personal application, in that I won't do it to my kids, but I do think
it is wrong for others too.
Thinking it is wrong doesn't mean I necessarily have any intention of
insisting on anybody else acting on my belief, of course. On the other
hand, there are some things I think are wrong enough that I'll try to
persuade people to come around to seeing it my way and there are other
beliefs that I hold strongly enough that I want to see them imposed on
everybody. (Like not blasting their music at high volumes at
campgrounds, for example <G>.)
> To me any truly personal belief in personal choice orIt sounds like you're saying that no general statements can be made
> self-determination
> -- like unschooling for example -- cannot rest on religious doctrine
> or
> political proclamations of what all children and parents should
> believe or do, or even what all unschoolers should believe or do.
>
about unschooling, but I doubt that is what you meant.
So - I'm clearly not following your point, JJ. The kinds of statements
I'm thinking of, about unschooling, are not religious or political.
What am I missing?
And - welcome!!!
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/20/03 2:43:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
But, speaking of..
Breastfeeding in public, discreetly, indiscreetly, boob hanging out,
topless.. Whatever..
Going naked in private, in public, among friends, among strangers, as a child
as a young adult as an old person...
Predestination, agreeing on stuff before we are born, psychic phenomenom,
life on other planets, heaven or hell..not caring about atrocities...
I'm right, you're wrong, we are all right, we are all wrong, no one knows,
some folks think they know but won't tell, Some folks don't have a clue. Some
folks know it all and tell everyone all about it
on and on and on.
I can't agree or disagree on any of it.. BUT, yes, blasting music in a
campground is wrong, on so many levels.
Teresa, going camping soon, WITHOUT loud music :-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> (Like not blasting their music at high volumes atOh yes, on this I can agree.. THAT is just wrong!
> campgrounds, for example <G>.)
>
But, speaking of..
Breastfeeding in public, discreetly, indiscreetly, boob hanging out,
topless.. Whatever..
Going naked in private, in public, among friends, among strangers, as a child
as a young adult as an old person...
Predestination, agreeing on stuff before we are born, psychic phenomenom,
life on other planets, heaven or hell..not caring about atrocities...
I'm right, you're wrong, we are all right, we are all wrong, no one knows,
some folks think they know but won't tell, Some folks don't have a clue. Some
folks know it all and tell everyone all about it
on and on and on.
I can't agree or disagree on any of it.. BUT, yes, blasting music in a
campground is wrong, on so many levels.
Teresa, going camping soon, WITHOUT loud music :-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joylyn
TeresaBnNC@... wrote:
truths. It is a universal truth that human bodies need food. One can
say that food is not necessary, that a person can live without food, but
the reality is--if you don't get food, you will eventually die. Water
is the same thing. The function of the heart is to move blood through
the body, the function of the lungs is to populate that blood with
oxygen, and the function of the breast is to provide Human Milk to the
human infant and child. Man can develop and has developed an artifical
heart and one day they may even have one that allows a person with a bad
or malformed heart to live a long full life, but I don't see people
lining up to get one simply because it MUST be better than the heart
they were born with, after all it's more scientific, you can measure how
often and well it beats, etc. Regardless of your beliefs, if you
believe in God, or Budha or in nothing, one cannot deny that breasts
were MADE to create milk. Not for sex, not for billboards, not for
topless dancing. Therefore it is common sense that regardless of what
our society says, human milk is the food for humans and that the
container that comes with human milk should not be hidden away. Do I
think women should walk around topless, no, but I also don't think men
should walk around topless. But women should feel free to breastfeed
their children wherever and however THEY choose to do so and other
people's opinion should not come into play at all.
Joylyn
> Breastfeeding in public, discreetly, indiscreetly, boob hanging out,I'm right, you're wrong, we are all right, we are all wrong, no one knows,
> topless.. Whatever..
> some folks think they know but won't tell, Some folks don't have aI don't know it all, but I do know this. There are SOME universal
> clue. Some
> folks know it all and tell everyone all about it
truths. It is a universal truth that human bodies need food. One can
say that food is not necessary, that a person can live without food, but
the reality is--if you don't get food, you will eventually die. Water
is the same thing. The function of the heart is to move blood through
the body, the function of the lungs is to populate that blood with
oxygen, and the function of the breast is to provide Human Milk to the
human infant and child. Man can develop and has developed an artifical
heart and one day they may even have one that allows a person with a bad
or malformed heart to live a long full life, but I don't see people
lining up to get one simply because it MUST be better than the heart
they were born with, after all it's more scientific, you can measure how
often and well it beats, etc. Regardless of your beliefs, if you
believe in God, or Budha or in nothing, one cannot deny that breasts
were MADE to create milk. Not for sex, not for billboards, not for
topless dancing. Therefore it is common sense that regardless of what
our society says, human milk is the food for humans and that the
container that comes with human milk should not be hidden away. Do I
think women should walk around topless, no, but I also don't think men
should walk around topless. But women should feel free to breastfeed
their children wherever and however THEY choose to do so and other
people's opinion should not come into play at all.
Joylyn
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> on and on and on.
>
> I can't agree or disagree on any of it.. BUT, yes, blasting music in a
> campground is wrong, on so many levels.
>
> Teresa, going camping soon, WITHOUT loud music :-)
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3897168.5135684.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&media=atkins>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.