Is there a Seniors' party in the federal electoral system? If not, should there be one?

"A group of fed-up pensioners are forming a political party to shake things up in Parliament.
They're called the Mature Age Party, and they want a voice for senior Australians."

Being a member of The Greens maybe I shouldn't be giving a heads up to a rival political party but what the heck;

http://themap.org.au/

Well, when groups feel that the "normal" political scene ignores
their interests it is natural to shout a bit louder.
One way they do this is forming single issue political parties.
A very proper thing to do, but as the economy tightens there is a
tendency for such parties to proliferate.

As it is easier to get minor parties into the senate that is the path they go.
This does increase the difficulty for government to get legislation
through the senate.

So it is a mixed blessing but probably a necessity.

From what I have seen on a couple of pensioner/self funded retirees sites I have tried, their only interest is in sticking their hand even deeper into the pocket of the few we still have earning their own living. Between many pensioners & the dole bludgers the handout mentality is thriving. As a pensioner myself, I'm horrified at the huge expectation so many have.

What we need is a reduction in spending, not an increase in taxes that will only be wasted on greasing noisy wheels, academia, quangos, the welfare lobby, or mates in high places.

The last thing we should be doing is giving more money to any level of government. I am much more capable of deciding on what & where my money should be spent, than any bureaucrat.

I am not a senior since I am not in a hierarchy. I am an old man of 90. I am concerned with the environment, with uncontrolled population growth, with the unequal division of resources, the separation of religion and state, the militarisation of society, the arms trade, corporate control and the decline in civility much more than I am concerned with being an old man. I will die, and my descendants will eventually follow me. If we live long enough we become old. I see no need for parties based on age, ethnicity or religion. A party based on age could be the beginning of an Australia splitting into parties based on divisive special interests. We have enough of that now. An old people's party is something I do not want and would not join.

Thanks for your comments.

I think a Seniors' rep in the Senate is a must.

Don't worry about the government not being able to afford the cost of extra services that would be demanded by a Seniors' party that would be representing a huge majority drawn from people aged 55 and above.

The government can simply do what it is doing now: keep increasing the number of wealthy Chinese immigrants to keep the economy afloat. So why shouldn't seniors have a good bite of the apple instead of accepting a position as underdogs who have to go without for an Australia that does not even exist as a nation anymore?

I looked at this web-site and was disappointed to see that the Mature Age Party are law-freaks and nationalists who want to force everyone who lives in Australia to assimilate.

No thanks!

While they (like the others) speak of "rights", I found no reference to the right to ride a bicycle. Should they have such a policy to re-allow people to ride a bicycle dressed as they wish, then I will still rank them in the next federal elections ahead of all other parties who don't have that policy.

Dear Yuyutsu

You can take nationalism out of the equation. Australia cannot claim to be a nation anymore. To be a nation a country needs to have a common language, a common history, and a common culture. Those days a long gone. Good bye Anglo-Australia, welcome Sino-Australia.

A Seniors' party in federal politics should be about one thing: making life better for people aged 55 and above. Any senior who doesn't want that should be certified insane (and probably is for that matter).

We need more political parties like we need a hole in the head. I'm senior and part pensioner, and like hasbeen, I think many pensioners want to live better than they did when they worked, the whingers. If the major parties cannot work for everybody, as they used to, then putting more snouts in the trough isn't going to help anyone. There are enough problems caused now by the Greens, Xenophon, the other one-man odds and sods.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

<<A Seniors' party in federal politics should be about one thing: making life better for people aged 55 and above.>>

Perhaps, but I read their agenda and this is not the case.

Apart from that, I wonder how "mature" and "experienced" they are: feeling guilty for taking other people's money is not a recipe for a better, happier and peaceful life.

<<You can take nationalism out of the equation.>>

If what you foresee is correct, then one must remember that a wounded beast is even more ferocious.

<<Australia cannot claim to be a nation anymore.>>

But politicians do, that's the nature of propaganda... and why did you add "anymore"?

<<To be a nation a country needs to have a common language, a common history, and a common culture.>>

Go tell them then... I don't like nations anyway and wish them all gone, but least of all I like to be swallowed and counted within the Chinese "nation" - better by a shark at sea!

Hi there MR OPINION...

Your remarks about Australia now being 'Sino-Australia' is pretty close to the mark I reckon. After all if it wasn't for the massive injection of Chinese capital I don't think we could even service our debts let alone provide for the existing social security structure.

I'm positively amazed as well as being profoundly saddened, at how our country has dramatically changed in the last half century, from a proud, economically resilient nation to one dependent on borrowings just to meet our interest payments. And where the true Australian character and identity is fast disappearing never again to be seen I believe.

Hi o sung wu,

It's good to see that there are other people on the forum who can use their eyes and mind to figure out what is happening in the world instead of holding up pages of downloaded stats and screaming out "I've got the answers!"

The end of Anglo-Australian nation-building was started in the 1980s by PM Bob Hawke. And the implement of its demise was multiculturalism coupled with an immigration system that sought to attract wealthy Chinese to come to the country. Since then Australia has become increasingly dependent on China and now we need an endless supply of wealthy Chinese migrants to keep the economy afloat.

Chinese are becoming the dominant social group in Australia and in the near future the country will embark on a new phase of nation-building under a Sino-Australian banner. The next step will then be a union of Sino-Australia with the ancestral homeland of the Chinese - China. I think it's inevitable.

But let's take advantage of the influx of Chinese money and capital into the country to get a really good deal for seniors. Seniors have sufficient electoral numbers to be able to get things their way by pressuring the government into giving them more. Sounds good to me.

Hi David, my thoughts exactly. The magical age of 55 and all should come your way, so this new party thinks. One thing is for sure, judging from the pics in the slide show on the web site, pearly whites for all those smiling seniors is a must be for the new party.

How could seniors not feel betrayed, many have worked all their lives, made many sacrifices along they way, only to be told, sorry, you've worked too hard and done too well so you're on your own.

One of the The greatest betrails in modern history.

As for having one in the senate, the senate is already a mess and the last thing we need is another minority person with too much say.

Fix the way the senate is elected then see what we can do I say.

The figures on the age groups of electors is quite phenomenal with respect to seniors. About four years ago people aged 55 and above constituted something like 47% of voters in the federal election.

Imagine what could be achieved if seniors left Labor, Liberal or Greens and concentrated their votes into a party that worked to improve their lot. I think the Senate is the best place to start. I think a seniors party would get swamped if it tried to get members into the lower house.

All it needs is for seniors is to start realising that there is power in numbers. Just imagine what sort of benefits could accrue.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Do you consider your age the most important thing about yourself? Have you considered that a party working to grab what they can for those in their old age group would be working against the interests of their younger descendants and other younger people? I am very concerned about the world I will leave behind me when I am dead. We are born with our fists clenched ready to grab what we can of the world. We die with open hands. We can take nothing with us, but we can leave a world the better for our being in it. I have almost lived my life. It is better to think of those I leave behind than to try to grab more for myself. You can't take it with you.

Dear David,

What a great response to Mr. Opinion...
Love thy neighbour as thyself...
and still you think that you are not religious?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You like what I said. Apparently you thought it was good. I think you have falsely equated being good with being religious. They are not the same thing.

Dear David,

It's not only that I think that what you said is good (as in "effective" or "sharp"), but it also shows the goodness of your heart.

Jesus said, "There is no good but God", so by being more good and unselfish you are coming closer to God, or rather call it "closer to goodness" if you wish to avoid the common trap of confusing God as some deity or an imaginary being.

Coming closer to your own true nature of goodness is a religious achievement. Many theists who go to church and entertain the concept of God still fail to attain this.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We define 'religious' differently and talk past each other.

Dear david f

I don't give two hoots about the future of a Sino-Australian nation in which the descendants you refer to are the children of the Chinese Communist Party.

The government can just keep doing what it is doing now: bringing in millions of wealthy Chinese to keep the economy afloat. So if the Chinese are going to inherit the country why not make them foot the bill for giving seniors a fair deal.

Interesting, how the religious believers attribute all "goodness" to god, as a counter to "badness" which they attribute to the devil. To reinforce this belief they introduce the "Jesus said...", given that they believe all that Jesus said is true, simply having Jesus say whatever you want him to say gives the religious total authority over god and all things good. Giving themselves total exclusivity over the human virtues of good is a powerful control.

David, you would find my partner an interesting case study on religion, very intelligent, she professors to be a christian and a believer in the christian god, and all that god stands for. However at the same time she still holds a firm belief in the Maori gods, and they are many in number, just as real to "T" as the christian god. Never leaving on a o/s trip without asking for the protection of 'Tangaroa' the god of the sea, with her protective 'pounamu' (greenstone) around her neck. "T" sees no conflict between the two, when I asked about the other gods, like the Hindu gods, she said they were fine too, for the Hindu's.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I do give two hoots about Australia. An Australian whose ancestors come from China is as Australian as an Australian whose ancestors come from England or have been here for forty thousand years. Being an Australian is not a matter of ethnicity or religion. I came to Australia from the United States. Australia has never been a white Australia even though that was government policy. The English were the invaders not the original inhabitants. The fact is that mankind did not evolve in Australia, and the ancestors of all Australians including the Aborigines have come from somewhere else. I see where you are coming from and don't like it. All Australians should be given a fairgo and treated with decency and respect regardless of ancestry, ethnicity or religion. The Chinese had printing and blast furnaces when the English were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. That doesn't make them superior, but it means their civilisation is older.

Dear Paul1405,

My daughter gets up on Sunday morning and goes to the Unitarian church. She sings in the choir and has sung in the choir in other churches. Sunday afternoon she attends a Buddhist sangha. Friday night she lights candles to mark the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. My daughter is also very intelligent having been a National Merit Scholar in the United States and having won a Presidential Scholarship to NYU which entitled her to a year at the Sorbonne in France.

Religious people may be good or bad. Non-religious people may be good or bad. I have no evidence to differentiate between the goodness or badness of religious and non-religious people. There is evidence that religious people tend to be more authoritarian than non-religious people.

Dear Paul,

I am not a Christian: I believe that Jesus had wisdom to impart because he was one among several teachers who were born to help us on our path at times when religion has gone astray (and it had gone badly astray for the Jews of his time).

The concept of devil, the personification of evil, is ridiculous (though useful in certain situations): evil is simply the absence of goodness, as darkness is the absence of light. It's the absence of seeing that we are all one in truth as there is nothing but God, thus if we hurt another we actually hurt ourselves.

Regarding your friend, I say "Good on her!". God is not a concept and cannot be conceived, so whichever concept(s) are helpful in focusing our attention on Him, I do support, including Jesus, Tangaroa and Pounamu.

Regarding the claim of exclusivity, I fully agree with David's reply: "Religious people may be good or bad. Non-religious people may be good or bad".

Religion is a journey, not a fixed state - and it spans all life.

At the beginning of this journey one is totally unconscious and at the end of this journey one is united with God and no longer exists.
In between, excluding those extremes, one travels from being bad to being good and can be found all along the spectrum.

We are all on this journey, so the term "non-religious" is relative and refers to those who have paused (or significantly slowed-down) for now, perhaps taking a rest from the journey rather than pursuing it ahead at this time. They too can be found pausing anywhere along the spectrum.

Dear Yuyutsu,

If the sayings of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are accurate he was an arrogant egomaniac.

He claimed that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven. It doesn't matter how good a life you led, but you went to heaven only if you bought the Jesus mumbojumbo.

If somebody came to me and said, "I am the way, the truth, the life." I would think he was an arrogant nut even if his name was Jesus.

The Jews of that time had not gone so far astray that most were able to recognise the arrogant Jesus nuttiness for the nonsense that it was.

Dear David,

My interpretation of John 14:6, is that Jesus, being a realised soul, knew who he is. In his own words, "I and my father are one".

But that's not specific to Jesus - since there is nothing but God, anyone can legitimately say: "I and my father are one".

As a consequence, you too could rightly say "No one can come to the father except through me"... "I am the way, the truth, the life" - not the carpenter's son called Jesus, not the learned old human called David, but what he truly is as well as what you truly are, God.

(I believe that the real reason why the Jewish leaders of his time gave Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified, is that he challenged their authority and ruined their business when he kicked out the traders from the temple)

Dear david f,

It doesn't matter if one likes or dislikes the coming of a Sino-Australian nation. The fact is it is now inevitable and people need to work out how they are going to exist in a society where non-Chinese will be discriminated against because of their racial heritage.

But getting back to the question raised in this topic, it appears that everyone except me does not like the idea of having a seniors' advocate in the Senate. Everyone (except me) seems to have given up on life and are ready to roll over and die without a fight. No wonder the Chinese can come into the country and take over everything and become the preponderant social group so easily. Now I know what the Chinese mean when they say things like "Aren't the whites dumb?"

Hi there YUYUTSU & DAVID F...

I've watched quietly while you two debate the existence of a Christian God or any other God for that matter. DAVID F with his implacable beliefs of atheism and YUYUTSU trying to rebut DAVID'S arguments with quotations from the Christian New Testament bible.

My own personal views are quite simple. If a person is confronting a particular crisis in their lives, such as a terminal illness or watching a loved one battle with a terminal illness - if they derive some measure of comfort from embracing certain passages from the bible, then I believe there's certainly no harm in it, whatever a person's beliefs are.

Moreover if an individual is entering the final stages of their life, and they find some spiritual repose from accepting the Christian faith to help them face their mortality again, so be it.

As a former veteran and a copper, I've witnessed many people grapple with their greatest fears, usually of an horrific death, or whatever, by turning to 'a God', I say good on them, whatever floats their boat and gives them some comfort, irrespective of my own personal beliefs.

My personal believes are simple (sorry YUYUTSU). We're born, we live for a few decades, and then we die upon which we return to dust. All rather simple and tidy I would've thought. No heaven, nor hell or purgatory - just dust.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I see no point in discussing anything further w you.

Dear o sung wu,

If they can grab a morsel of comfort from it good. I agree that our life on earth is all we have.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The New Testament was written as a propaganda document for a new faith. It is highly unreliable as a chronicle or historical account.

From Carpenter's "Pagan & Christian Creeds - Their Origin and Meaning"

"At the time of the life or recorded appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and
for some centuries before, the Mediterranean and neighboring world had
been the scene of a vast number of pagan creeds and rituals. There were
Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the
Greeks, ... etc. Societies, large or small, united believers and the devout in the
service or ceremonials connected with their respective deities, and
in the creeds which they confessed concerning these deities. ... notwithstanding great
geographical distances and racial differences between the adherents
of these various cults, as well as differences in the details of their
services, the general outlines of their creeds and ceremonials were--if
not identical--so markedly similar as we find them.

I cannot of course go at length into these different cults, but I may
say roughly that of all or nearly all the deities above-mentioned it was
said and believed that:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to
the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples
were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals."

The New Testament Jesus was made to be compatible with existing pagan gods.

Hi (again) MR OPINION...

You're perfectly correct in your assessment, it was Mr Lee Kuan YEW the former PM of Singapore, who once described Australia as being the new 'white trash of Asia'. And it's come to pass, unfortunately.

Do I hear you ask why MR OPINION ? Because we've had a succession of politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, who're are similar to a 'roo caught in oncoming headlights, stunned into a sort of paralysis of inaction and not knowing what to do. Instead of adopting a strong bipartisan alliance to do what's best for the country as a whole, they engage in petty politics for the enhancement of their own position of power and to worship their God of 'filthy lucre'. And now Mr OPINION it's all rather too late for Australia.

Dear o sung wu,

I totally agree with your summation. This is exactly what I have been on about.

And it is because of the incompetence and selfishness and stupidity of Australia's politicians and business leaders over the past 35 years that seniors should unite to protect their group interests. The politicians and business leaders have sold us out to China for profits and tax revenues. So why not unite to put a seniors' rep into federal government to protect ourselves from the impact of the unstoppable Chinese takeover that everyone can see but doesn't want to oppose.

Hi there MR OPINION...

Further to your last thread, I too would totally support the installation of a Senior person into the Senate, in fact why not another one or two like minded individuals ? Not only to preserve the existing rights of seniors, but to take up those specific issues and causes that deleteriously impact upon the lives and general welfare of all elderly Australians. A further benefit would be, to inject some good old fashioned commonsense and steadiness into the parliament, a commodity which has been sadly lacking in recent years.

Dear David,

It may well be that the New Testament is lacking in historical accuracy, nor did I claim otherwise.

What you cannot do however, is on the one hand to complain about Jesus being an arrogant nut for saying "I am the way... Only through me...", then on the other hand that he hasn't said it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "What you cannot do however, is on the one hand to complain about Jesus being an arrogant nut for saying "I am the way... Only through me...", then on the other hand that he hasn't said it."

I wrote: "If somebody came to me and said, "I am the way, the truth, the life." I would think he was an arrogant nut even if his name was Jesus."

Note I was careful to write "if". If he said it he was an arrogant nut.

That is not claiming that Jesus said it. The Jesus depicted in the New Testament is an arrogant nut. He may not have said it or even existed.

If he was as pictured in the New Testament the Jews were spot on in recognising and not accepting him.

Dear David,

If somebody came to me and said, "I am the way, the truth, the life" then I would need to consider many possibilities:

1. That s/he is an arrogant nut.
2. That s/he is a charlatan.
3. That s/he is a comedian and there's a secret camera behind.
4. That s/he took drugs.
5. That s/he wants to be declared insane in court, to avoid punishment.
6. That someone is pointing a gun at her, ordering her to say those words.
7. That s/he has bet $1000 with a friend that s/he would dare to go out and say that to a stranger.
8. That s/he was sent by the atheist-society in order to test me.
...
N. That s/he speaks the truth, knowing who s/he truly is.

To try and determine which case it is, I would need to know more about the whole context and look at supporting/refuting evidence.
In particular, any hint of selfishness, power-seeking, greed or lust would rule out the last possibility. Their rare absence, however, would strengthen that case.

Fortunately for me, I also had glimpses of directly-experiencing who I am, so I can remember the space from where I could have said those words myself, with no trace of arrogance and though it was in the past and only memories remain, comparing my memory of those moments with my impressions of the person in question can also be of much help.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Have a nice day.

Hi o sung wu,

I'm glad to see that there is at least one other person in this country who can read the writing on the wall.

I've been looking for a seniors' party who will be fielding a Senate candidate at the next election. So far I've found an organisation called Mature Age Party.

I'm looking to give my support to a party that basically has a singular (or at least principal) platform of "Seniors Want More!". Just imagine what could be achieved if the 55+ group - which makes up almost half of the voters - got behind the Seniors' candidates!

Hi All,

o sung wu makes a very good point, its not important what is real or what is myth. What is important is what an individual believes to be real and the consequences of that belief. If a religious belief gives some spiritual comfort, brings one some serenity in their life then that in itself is a good thing regardless of whether that belief is based on reality or not.
There is a very high likelihood that much of what is attributed to "Jesus said", Jesus never actually said it, and others simply for reasons best known to themselves attributed it to Jesus, Given that Jesus wondered around for three years sayings all manner of things, obviously much of it never got reported, and things that were reported may well have been distorted.
Jesus said "Eat pizza on Tuesdays and you will go to heaven." It is not important if Jesus said it or not, if you believe it, and it brings you spiritual comfort, then that is what is important, nothing else.
Unfortunately a lot of what religions tell their followers is not so benign but down right dangerous crap. I believe on balance the bad aspects of religion outweigh the good, and therefore religion is inherently bad, and society would be better off without it.

Dear Paul1405,

I agree that religion does more harm than good. However, religion maintains its grasp because the benefits are uneven. Those that religion serves are generally in control. This is true whether it is a monarch appealing to the divine right of kings or an atheist politician like Gillard who caters to the Australian Christian Lobby. Those who suffer from religion like Australian children who go to inadequate public schools because subsidies to religious schools drain off funds that might improve their schools, women who may have difficulty accessing adequate contraception and abortion facilities, women in Muslim countries who are completely denied an education, men in Muslim countries who are denied a good education because the madrassas concentrate on learning the Koran by rote in preference to subjects more useful etc. Those with power employ religion as a mechanism of control. Those without power suffer.

Dear Paul,

You don't need to be Jesus in order to know that if you eat pizza on Tuesdays then you will go to heaven.

How long you will spend there in heaven is a different question: maybe 5 seconds, maybe 5,000,000 years, but eventually you will need to come back down with a bad taste in your mouth or a stomach-ache.

The pizza-chain could try to sell you that idea of heaven as "religion", but we well understand that all they care about is taking your money.
Religion however, is not about getting such temporary results, but about uniting with God where even the illusion of 'time' disappears.

If you are so naive as to accept the claim of pizza chains that they are "a religion" (because they take you to heaven [and back]), then no wonder you end up with the conclusion that "on balance the bad aspects of religion outweigh the good".

---

P.S., What is your idea of "spiritual comfort"? I can understand physical comfort, mental comfort and emotional comfort, but what's "spiritual comfort"?

Comfort is temporary and if it depends on a belief, then not later than when the brain disintegrates and that belief is no longer sustained, so goes away the comfort.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Spiritual comfort, is an inner felling of serenity brought on by a confident belief in the certainty of the outcome. An example of this would be the inner comfort one gets from a religious belief in heaven when one has lost a loved one. The belief that the deceased has gone to a better place, and that one day on your demise, you will join that person again in a loving relationship in heaven with god. A terminally ill person could find spiritual comfort in a belief in the same afterlife brought about by their religious convictions.

For many, religion gives meaning to life, that the purpose of our existence is to please god and ultimately god's pleasurable acceptance will see us move from this temporary mundane earthly existence to a wonderfully permanent existence with god in heaven.

Why do Christians believe in a different god today than the one they believed in say 500 years ago?
The god that is postulated today by mainstream Christianity is a kind, loving, forgiving god, Yet 500 years ago god was presented by the same mainstream Christian religions as a spiteful, vengeful, angry god, always at the ready to smite the transgressor. When did god change his nature?

I've been watching your discussions on religion with great amusement. The only thing I've learnt from them is that you guys have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy, sociology, anthropology and history.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

Indeed, no knowledge of philosophy, sociology, anthropology or history is required in order to practice religion. All you need is a pure heart and God's grace.

---

Dear Paul,

It doesn't matter what/which god Christians believe in - only what is in their heart. So long as this belief or another helps them to open and purify their hearts, preparing it to receive God, then it is welcome, irrespective whether the particular contents of that belief are factually correct or otherwise.

Religion often produces beneficial and therapeutic side-effects, but to waste it on such temporary things and stop there, is a pity. Among those side-effects I count finding-a-meaning-to-life, mental comfort, emotional comfort and the wonderful feeling of serenity.

That's all nice, but temporary and one should not stop there: the purpose of religion is to transcend the illusion of existence altogether, only then one finds God, in fact one then finds out that they ARE God and there has never been anything else.

"Indeed, no knowledge of philosophy, sociology, anthropology or history is required in order to practice religion. All you need is a pure heart and God's grace."

You don't even need a pure heart and God's grace. Gullibility is the main need in practicing religion.

Dear yuyutsu and david f,

You need a knowledge of philosophy, sociology, anthropology and history to UNDERSTAND religion, not to PRACTISE religion.

Dear David,

It's a hot topic currently about Catholic priests who TRIED to practice religion without a pure heart, then instead ended up in bed with their choir boys.

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

Nothing short of actual practice allows one to understand religion, but yes, a knowledge of philosophy, sociology, anthropology and history is needed in order to understand what religion is not.

Dear yuyutsu,

That is the most confusing thing anyone has ever said to me.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

If you study your philosophy, sociology, anthropology and history, then you will learn how religion was abused through the ages, how corrupt and power-seeking leaders claimed whatever they liked to be "religion", how they promised worldly (including post-worldly) advantages, riches, health, comfort and success - none of which is of any spiritual significance, for what they claimed to be religious practices, how they presented hygienic and scientific principles as if they were the word of god, how they made a mess by comparing irrelevant objective/scientific facts with the fruits of the spirit, etc.

Thus you would be studying about all manner of things that have nothing to do with religion because they do not lead to God. You would be studying what religion is not!

If you want to understand religion, then you need to practice it. If you don't know how, then pray to find that out, or meanwhile you could begin practising some established religion or you could even make your own, whatever most appeals and inspires you, then you will continue to refine it as you go. Whichever religion you choose, the path to God starts with restraints, in other words, it places limits on materialism so that your life and your energy can be diverted towards God - but those restraints may not be imposed by others or be taken up out of fear or greed or anger, they should come from your own free and loving choice. For a non-denominational explanation about the elementary restraints, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4soSHYkCra0

Dear yuyutsu,

That is the second most confusing thing anyone has ever said to me.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

Well, I try to simplify as much as I can:

What philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians consider to be "religious" is generally not religious at all, but either mistaken for religion or deliberately contrived as religion.

Yuyutsu wrote:

"....Whichever religion you choose, the path to God starts with restraints, in other words, it places limits on materialism so that your life and your energy can be diverted towards God..."

You ain't seen nothing yet, Mr Opinion.

Yuyutsu has regaled us many times with the fact that "we" are in fact "God".

So it's interesting that he is presently suggesting ways for us to get to God.

I'm sure he'll enlighten us further any time now.

Dear Poirot,

I cannot enlighten you, how less so against your own inclinations: if you want to be enlightened then you need to make the effort yourself and yes, restraining your behaviour, speech and thoughts (as explained by the clip on Yama which I provided earlier) is the first step.

"I cannot enlighten you, how less so against your own inclinations: if you want to be enlightened then you need to make the effort yourself and yes, restraining your behaviour, speech and thoughts (as explained by the clip on Yama which I provided earlier) is the first step."

Not so fast Yuyutsu.

The "enlightenment" to which I referred pertained your statement about finding a path to God.

I know you're extremely adept at waffling your way in and out of corners into which you back yourself...but can you explain why we are required (if we are so inclined) to make our way towards God - when (as you have stated in the past) we already "are" God?

Dear Poirot,

What you have from me is only theoretical knowledge, that you are God, that's all I can give you, but regardless whether you believe me or not, at the moment this is not your actual experience, right?

Enlightenment does not change who you are, but it can change your experience, permanently so.

When you go to a restaurant, are you content with just seeing the menu? That's fine if you do, but if you rather have actual food on your plate and in your mouth, then you need to pay for it.

Yuyutsu,

So what you mean is that people (if they are so inclined) seek a path to the "realisation" that they're God?

(This my last post off topic:)

Dear Poirot,

Yes, but without quotes.

Dear Poirot and Yuyutsu,

onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065&page=1 points to my article, "God is a human invention". Hopefully we will eventually become sufficiently mature that we can be free from the primitive thought processes which promoted that invention.

Dear David,

Yes, the god(s) that you speak about in your article are human inventions.

The God that can be invented is not the eternal God.

Tao the Ching, Chapter 1 - http://www.taoism.net/ttc/chapters/chap01.htm :
---
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
...

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no real God. All are invented. Humans invent explanations where there is no evidence. Then they keep those explanations and claim, "The God I follow isn't invented." You apparently desire to believe in nonsense. Have a nice day.

Dear David,

It doesn't make sense to believe in the reality of God until and unless one believes in the reality of themselves, until you stop denying that YOU ARE and stop asking for evidence for that which is most obvious of all.

Once you do admit that you are, then half the job is done and all that is left is to question yourself "Who am I?". Contemplate this question long enough and you will find that there is no difference between yourself and everything and everyone else, no difference between your AMness and others' AREness and ISness, that the seeming separateness is an illusion and so you and all others and all else, are in fact one - and that one is God.

I think I already provided this link before: http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html

There, Swami Vivekananda states: "He is an atheist who does not believe in himself."

Swami Vivekananda can also mouth religious nonsense. Religious nonsense is not limited to the Abrahamic religions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Apart from philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians I do not know of any other group that studies and analyses religion.

Dear David,

Even if you consider someone's statements to be nonsense, you still need to ascertain whether they are religious nonsense.

As far as I am concerned, if some nonsense is religious (take for example virgin-birth, resulting as we know from a mis-translation) then I'm all for it, for if it helps people to come closer to God then who cares about the rest?!

But if a piece of nonsense isn't religious, if it doesn't help anyone to come closer to God, then it can't be called "religious nonsense"!

It seems that you do not even recognise the existence of religion*, but in that case you contradict yourself when you mention "religious nonsense".

(* that is not to say that you do not recognise the existence of individuals and organisations which call themselves "religious", just that you find no substance to their claim)

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

On the assumption that unlike David you essentially acknowledge that religion exists, then many religious people study religion, religious teachers teach religion and there is a vast body of information about religion in scripture.

(and if you didn't acknowledge that religion exists, then you would arrive at the logical conclusion that philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians do not study or analyse religion either)

Dear Yuyutsu,

Certainly I recognise that religion exists. It belongs to that class of mental attitudes called superstition.

Closer to God? One cannot become closer to or farther from a non-existent entity.

You wrote: "(* that is not to say that you do not recognise the existence of individuals and organisations which call themselves "religious", just that you find no substance to their claim)"

I don't know what you mean by the above. If an individual or an organisation calls itself religious they are religious as far as I am concerned.

I can even accept that you might not have meant to be insulting when you insulted me by calling me religious.

I don't contradict myself when I refer to religious nonsense. All nonsense is not religious nonsense. Religious nonsense is one kind of nonsense. There are other kinds of nonsense.

Dear David,

<<If an individual or an organisation calls itself religious they are religious as far as I am concerned.>>

And if an individual or an organisation calls itself a horse, then they are horses as far as you are concerned? Thence you conclude that horses can speak?

And if an individual or an organisation calls itself a dinosaur, then they are dinosaurs as far as you are concerned? Thence you claim that "dinosaurs still exist"?

<<Certainly I recognise that religion exists>>

All you recognise is that there exist people who claim that they are "coming closer to God". Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, but so far you never acknowledged that either they or anyone else are in fact coming closer to God, in fact you explicitly denied it, thus you have not recognised the existence of religion, only the existence of strange people.

And it's not only you who make this error, also most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have made no error. You have an idiosyncratic definition of religion which I have never heard from anyone else. As far as I know no one else shares it. You define religion as coming closer to God. I see no reason to accept that as a definition for religion.

You wrote: "And it's not only you who make this error, also most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians."

There is no reason that anyone else should accept your definition of religion. I find this discussion tiresome so will stop and not continue this discussion.

"Apart from philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians I do not know of any other group that studies and analyses religion.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 6 November 2015 8:47:24 PM"

You left out theologians and politicians.

Dear Is Mise,

Politicians do not study religion FULL STOP. That is simply just not what politicians do.

Theologians only study the text of their religious doctrine in order to engage in discourse with the converted on the tenets of worship and religious understanding. They definitely do not study religion in the ways or for the reasons that philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians do.

Dear Mr Opinion,

The most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians can study about religion without experiencing religion themselves, is the impression of religion on society.

Some find how religion benefits society, others find detrimental effects on society, but since their only field of interest is society, they are happy and do not ask for anything more profound.

As for theologians, the lowest among them are just theorising and construct mental sand-castles; the mediocres are as you mentioned yourself, studying a limited set of religious techniques/practices/methods which can help elevating a particular group of people in particular circumstances; but the best study and teach the common foundations of all religions, irrespective of the specific cultures in which they operate.

Dear yuyutsu,

Your sentence 'The most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians can study about religion without experiencing religion themselves, is the impression of religion on society.' tells me straightaway that you have never studied philosophy, sociology, anthropology or history. But that's OK because these are the really interesting subjects in life and I encourage amateurs like yourself to engage in the debates because it means that you are at least thinking about and enjoying the subjects I have dedicated my life to studying.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

Some of my family members also find those four disciplines interesting, but I don't.

I think that it takes a belief in progress to be interested, as if humanity is a story of marching towards the rising sun. There could of course be temporary setbacks, which make the story more interesting, but overall in the long term it only gets better.

And I disagree.

An interest in those subjects tends to increase our attachment to the human state, instilling in us the desire to come back again and again to re-experience the human condition and to find out how humanity has advanced.

This roller-coaster of pleasure and pain, birth and death, I had enough of. It's time for me to step off, to stop looking outward for more, but to turn my gaze inward so I never again return to the world in general and to this human condition in particular. This is my aim and why I turn to religion instead.

Dear yuyutsu,

That is the third most confusing thing you have said to me.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

OK, so let me try to simplify:

If one believes that the human race is on a course of meaningful progress, then one tends to be interested in studying the details of that progress, hence the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, anthropology and history.

Otherwise, as in my personal case, such an interest does not arise.

(the rest of what I wrote was just a further explanation about why my interests are different)

P.S. The idea of progress is particularly central to the Abrahamic traditions.

I always thought we were meant to live something like ....

In deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths;
In feelings, not in figures on a dial.

We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives
Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best.

And he whose heart beats quickest lives the longest:
Lives in one hour more than in years do some
Whose fat blood sleeps as it slips along their veins.

Life’s but a means unto an end; that end,
Beginning, mean, and end to all things—God.

The dead have all the glory of the world.

Philip James Bailey

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/we-live-deeds-not-years-thoughts-not-breaths

So upon the above, a seniors party, or really any party of any nature, is therefore quite questionable in value.