The game of life
I grew up in the 1960s. In those benighted days we didn't have personal computers or the Internet, cable TV or DVD players. We didn't even have microwave popcorn; we had Jiffy Pop, which we heated on the stove in a tinfoil container. In short, there were fewer entertainment options.
So one of the things families did was sit around a kitchen table and play games. In our family we played Monopoly, Life, and Yahtzee, among others.
The thing about playing those games was that you had to commit yourself to winning. If you didn't care about winning, the game was a big snooze; it was pointless, a waste of time. So you wanted to win; you really did. When you won, you felt smugly pleased with yourself. When you lost, you felt frustrated or disappointed or even angry. Either way, the feeling didn't last very long -- because it was, after all, only a game.
I think those games of my childhood have a lot to teach us about life. We all experience challenges and setbacks, successes and failures, and we can't help being affected by them. Kipling's advice to
meet with Triumph and Disaster
and treat those two impostors just the same
is beautifully expressed but probably impossible to put into practice. We will never treat triumph and disaster "just the same." No matter how philosophical about it we may be, we value success and we disvalue failure. We're built that way.
We can, however, learn to see our ups and downs as less dramatic than they may appear. We can commit ourselves to winning the game, while still being aware that it is only a game and that winning will provide only a temporary rush, soon to dissipate in the press of other events. In other words, we can play all-out while still allowing a small watchful part of us to stand back and observe ourselves in amused detachment.
I have found that this is easier to do then it may sound. Mainly, it requires self-awareness, a willingness to monitor your own thoughts and to catch yourself when you're becoming overly invested in a certain outcome. Thoughts that lead us astray are constantly popping into our heads, but if we see them as nothing more than thoughts, we can smile at them and brush them off.
Many of these thoughts are of the "if only" type. If only my candidate wins the election (or "their" candidate doesn't) ... if only I get that promotion or that raise (or the other guy doesn't) ... if only I can afford that new plasma TV or sports car (and my neighbor can't) ... then I'll be happy and everything will be perfect! But if things don't go my way -- I'll be crushed, shattered! Woe is me!
These thoughts are often couched in less crudely self-seeking terms. We convince ourselves that if our candidate loses, the country or the planet will be doomed. See, I'm not just thinking about myself and my own ego-investment in a particular politician's campaign -- not at all! I'm worried about the planet, dammit! I'm looking at the big picture!
But this is a lie. We are not looking at the big picture. We are simply trying to puff ourselves up by imagining that our particular ego-needs are synonymous with the future of humanity.
Or we say: I'm not concerned about getting a promotion just for my own sake. It's about justice. It's about what's fair. It's about what's right. I deserve this promotion and if I don't get it then it means there's no justice in the world. The whole cosmic balance of right and wrong depends on my getting this promotion. It's not about me at all!
Again, of course, it is all about us. Inflating our personal needs or desires into metaphysical absolutes is just another way of expanding the ego -- in this case, blowing it up so big that it fills the entire universe.
When we think this way, we're like a little kid who hasn't yet learned how to enjoy playing a kitchen table game. For a very little kid, the outcome of the game really does seem like life and death. Winning is unadulterated joy; losing is inconsolable sorrow. When we grow up a little, we learn not to take games so seriously. When we grow up a little more, we learn not to take life quite so seriously, either.
In the past, when I would read exactly this same kind of argument in self-help books, I would resist it, sometimes angrily. I would protest that treating life as a game means playing to lose, or not playing at all. I would say that if someone regarded life as less than 100% serious and important, then that person would not be capable of rousing himself to pursue any goals or to fight injustice or to preserve his own freedom. How can we fight terrorism if we start thinking that way? I would ask (thus elevating my ego-needs to the rank of national security concerns).
I misunderstood the situation. Seeing life as a game does not mean we don't take it seriously. When I was playing Monopoly or Yahtzee, I took it seriously; I strategized and calculated; I looked for every advantage; I wanted to win. But I also had fun, because I knew the outcome was not ultimately important. And because I could relax enough to have fun, I played better than if I had been treating the game with the utmost seriousness. Instead of being nervous and flustered, I was at ease and able to think clearly. Far from being an ordeal, the game was enjoyable.
Many people view their lives with the utmost seriousness, and as a result, their lives become a kind of ordeal -- an obstacle course they must navigate on a daily basis, a series of hazards they must avoid or overcome. They are stressed out, angry, agitated, anxiety-ridden, prone to making impulsive mistakes, to overreacting. They make themselves crazy. They make people around them crazy. Everything is a crisis. Every outcome is "Triumph or Disaster." Everything matters, and matters so much! Their lives could be less of an ordeal and more enjoyable -- and probably more successful, too -- if they stopped behaving like tortured characters in a Wagnerian opera, and saw themselves as kids playing Monopoly.
In fact, most people do learn to do this, but they learn it rather late. Surveys and studies consistently show that people, on average, become happier as they get older. Senior citizens are the happiest of all age groups, while teenagers are the least happy. The reason seems to be that as people get older, they learn that few setbacks are permanent and few successes really matter. They learn to take things as they come and not to be suckered into overdramatizing every fluctuation of their fortune. For younger people, life is more like a roller coaster, with dizzying highs and terrifying lows. For older people, the highs and lows smooth out, and the ride becomes less exhilarating, perhaps, but far more pleasant.
George Bernard Shaw famously said that youth is wasted on the young. What he meant is that we would benefit immensely if, in our youth, we were granted the perspective that comes with age. But actually that perspective can be ours at any time. We need only play the game of life the same way we played the game of Life, back when games were fun.
Hello,
The name Michael Prescott came into my head while working on my computer and catching glimpses of an old TV show that had a crossover character. I thought his name was MP but when I Googled his old show - I was no where close. For some reason I still needed to know why I had that name with me and, here you are online!
This morning over coffee a friend was talking about her own realizations, mirroring the subject of your post today. Earlier it was more about my friend, after reading your post I got what I was supposed to hear for me!
Thanks,
M
Posted by: Marie | August 31, 2008 at 02:05 PM
I agree that we shouldn't take life too seriously. But on the other hand, the dangers of life are real, and very unlike the dangers of losing monopoly. The suffering that some people experience, either because of bad luck or bad planning, can be immense.
I admit I worry too much and can sometimes drive myself, and others, crazy. But I have avoided some bad outcomes as a result. I should worry less, but I know people who in my opinion should worry more. They could have avoided some of their worst problems if they had thought more about the future.
When you're playing monopoly or chess, or whatever, you can be a little reckless because there will always be another game. Recklessness can have very different consequences when driving a car, for example.
So your advice, like all advice, must be balanced with its opposite.
Posted by: pec | August 31, 2008 at 05:09 PM
I know people who in my opinion should worry more.
Treating life as a game does not mean we forgo planning. If we're playing to win, we calculate, strategize, look ahead, try to anticipate, etc. We'll do this more clearly if we maintain a calm, relaxed attitude. People who don't plan at all aren't calm and relaxed, in my experience; they are frazzled, impulsive, and prone to emotional overreaction.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 31, 2008 at 08:11 PM
Strangely, Michael, as a child I too used to play Monopoly and Yahtzee and occasionally enjoyed the thrill of winning.
Now, as a Senior Citizen, life certainly is very calm. I attribute this to my interest in the spiritual side of life which began nearly fifty years ago.
Of course, Life isn't a straight line - it has its ups and downs - but the most important lesson I learnt was to develop peace of mind.
Beside that all else pales into insignificance.
Posted by: Zerdini | August 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM
An interesting and thought provoking post indeed. When I was young I also played all of those board games with my family. A good time for bonding . . . as well as fighting.
Well, atop my perch in the mountains overlooking the great capital city of Santa Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands, I am constantly amazed at the great emotional divide that I see in Spain and in these islands. Wages are low, prices are rising, rents are going stellar, food costs are entering the criminal zone . . . like almost everywhere else. The Canarian people get their release by holding fiestas, multiple fiestas, so many fiestas that one wonders when they actually work. So much money is used for fiestas that some cities are running out of euros. The Spanish are among the most fiesta-driven individuals I have ever had the delight to meet. But when fiesta time is over, they go back to work, a dour look on their faces, worried and preoccupied with thoughts of how they will make it until the end of the month.
While I am much in agreement with your post, I´d like to add that game playing at the micro level - our level - is one thing. In trying to negotiate real life, the uber reality of governments and corporations gone wild, the game is not always so easy to play. There are hidden players, faceless and gutless wonders, who prefer to manipulate from behind the curtain, sometimes changing the rules in their favor. It is not always possible to identify these faceless players, and this makes winning the game of life highly problematic, if not downright impossible.
But play we must!
Kalani Hanohano
Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Posted by: Kalani Hanohano | September 01, 2008 at 03:11 AM
"Treating life as a game does not mean we forgo planning"
I know, I understand that. My point is that while losing at a game can make us feel bad, the consequences of losing at life can be physical as well as emotional. Of course we shouldn't be miserable just because we didn't get that promotion or can't afford a 10 foot TV. But serious health or financial problems can result from bad choices in life. I'm just saying that in some ways life is very different from games.
We do not experience real fear while playing games (unless we are a professional at the game and our career depends on it). But we do experience real fear about real life, and we should.
Yes life is similar to a game in that it should be fun and we should welcome challenges as a chance to learn and evolve. But there is a deadly serious side to life as well. I feel that our society has tried hard to lose sight of that. If I expressed these thoughts to a health professional I would be offered Zoloft.
Posted by: pec | September 01, 2008 at 06:05 AM
Excellent post, MP. It's a world of thought, and the trick appears to be to learn to play the game without being tricked by our own thoughts. I think the real winners are those who learn to be engaged without being invested.
I do think that time helps most people recognize this - there's truth in the idea that wisdom often correlates with age - I can't recall who it was it that said that their life had been a steady stream of unmitigated disasters, most of which never happened. It's also interesting that the wisest are usually very young children and the elderly. It's as if we start out with the right perspective before we learn our way out of it. For most of us, wisdom arrives as momentary flashes of insight amidst the mental chaos of youth and early adulthood. Those who are fortunate learn to recognize and respect those flashes of insight, and grow wise over time. The less fortunate grow bitter.
Posted by: Michael H | September 01, 2008 at 07:21 AM
Life? I think of it more like a school. Learn what we need to learn and then graduate. Everyone experiences duality and separation, time and space, and imprints memories of what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates. Losing someone you love (death of a loved one) is the ultimate lesson in separation. Nothing else comes close. Which is probably why we will never be allowed to know absolutely for certain that there is life after death, because if we knew for certain that one day we were going to be reunited with our loved ones in heaven we might not mourn their passing quite as much. The soul's lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and the soul learns holistically what it's supposed to learn in much the same way that small children learn before they ever start to school.
Posted by: Art | September 01, 2008 at 07:57 AM
"Which is probably why we will never be allowed to know absolutely for certain that there is life after death, because if we knew for certain that one day we were going to be reunited with our loved ones in heaven we might not mourn their passing quite as much."
Many people HAVE HAD evidence that they will be reunited with their loved ones - maybe not in Heaven - but certainly in the Spirit World and many have returned to confirm that it was indeed so.
That knowledge doesn't stop us missing their physical presence though.
Posted by: Zerdini | September 01, 2008 at 08:37 AM
Many people HAVE HAD evidence that they will be reunited with their loved ones - maybe not in Heaven - but certainly in the Spirit World and many have returned to confirm that it was indeed so. - zerdini
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, but there are always the scoffers, skeptics, and cynics though who plant the seeds in our heads that what we experienced was just a hallucination or anoxia or is "cold reading" or that what happened to you didn't really happen. There are always little seeds of doubt being planted to keep us from being 100% absolutely for certain that what we believe is true. I am 97.75% confident that what I believe is "true" but I reserve that little 2.25% seed of doubt for just in case there is something I haven't thought of yet. That perhaps the only thing that survives are my memories and not the real "me". The SELF, that voice inside my head, my consciousness, or sentience. I'm fairly certain it does, but I wouldn't say I'm absolutely 100% confident.
Posted by: Art | September 01, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Art, I don't listen to the scoffers,skeptics, and cynics because I have had enough evidence over nearly fifty years that I can be 100% confident.
I would be foolish to say otherwise.
Posted by: Zerdini | September 01, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Art, I don't listen to the scoffers, skeptics, and cynics because I have had enough evidence over nearly fifty years that I can be 100% confident. I would be foolish to say otherwise. Posted by: Zerdini
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I reserve just enough "doubt" to keep me firmly planted in this world. Just enough to keep me grounded and living my life instead of completely giving up and sitting around and waiting for the next life. I am 55 years old and have pretty bad arthritis in my hips and back and am 6' tall and weigh about ~ 300 lbs so it would be pretty easy to just sit back and wait to die. I have just enough "doubt" about life after death to keep trying to lose some weight and try and enjoy this life as much as possible. The picture that is painted by "most" near death experiencers and death bed visions is so positive that everything we have in this life pales by comparison. My philosophy is that we are here to "make memories" and the more good ones we carry with us the more we will be able to use those memories in the next life. So, Yes, I do believe, but like Alison Krauss says in her song "There Is A Reason", "I do believe but forgive my unbelief." Just enough doubt to keep me mentally "here."
Posted by: Art | September 01, 2008 at 10:43 AM
like Alison Krauss says in her song "There Is A Reason", "I do believe but forgive my unbelief.
I think Alison may have gotten that line from an earlier source ...
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 01, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I think Alison may have gotten that line from an earlier source ... Michael Prescott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent! Thanks, I didn't know that. It's good to know. I'm a huge Alison Krauss fan. I think the song was actually written by Ron Block who plays in Krauss's band, Union Station. The song can be found youtube if you care to listen to it.
Posted by: Art | September 01, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Art, I am truly sorry to hear about your health problems and trust that life is not too unbearable.
We are here to make the most of this earth life as it is this that determines where we find ourselves when eventually we discard the physical body.
All I know with certainty is that life is continuous.
Posted by: Zerdini | September 01, 2008 at 11:24 AM
In all of my research only once do I remember reading that competition was used as a game or for any type of competition in the astral worlds. I read once that some form of volleyball was being played for fun. They did not say if there were winners or losers of the game.
I have always felt there is something inherently erroneous with competition and its winners and losers. It appears it can bring out the best in us but also the worst.
I know from being an organizational consultant it can create major hostility between departments and employees within an organization when employees are put into competition with one another.
As I believe in soul evolution the losing part could give the soul opportunities to develop in compassion. Failure is often a better teacher than success.
I have noticed since I am older winning is no longer that important to me. It is much more enjoyable for me to watch another person win when we play ladder golf in our back yard.
Competition is a very fast way to motivate people to perform but I notice seldom are the ill side effects recognized and documented. We tend to see what we want to see in spite of the evidence.
Posted by: william | September 01, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Just wondering why no word of luck was mentioned in any of the above comments. For sure, I am not the only one that feel or think that luck plays a big part in any game, including the game of life.
Say, in a game of scrabble, how can you expect to win if you keep getting all consonants or all vowels at a time? Or is this more of what they refer to as 'odds'in the game? Being mindful of the element of luck which is really beyond one's control, can minimize the player's pain in case of a loss. It's always consoling to one's ego to say that s/he lost for being unlucky, not for lack of skill.
Posted by: Dom | September 01, 2008 at 05:11 PM
“Just wondering why no word of luck was mentioned in any of the above comments. For sure, I am not the only one that feel or think that luck plays a big part in any game, including the game of life.”
Luck, fate, and destiny do we really know at this level of our knowing the whys and the meanings for most of our life’s outcomes?
Posted by: william | September 01, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Michael,
I agree with everything you say, but I do question those surveys which say that people in their senior years are happier. I haven't seen one yet that really defines "happy" or "happiness." I think we are "happiest" when we face challenges, although we may not really define it as happiness. It is fulfillment more than it is happiness.
Since I am 71, I know many seniors and encounter many others. I suspect most of them would respond to a survey by saying they are reasonably happy, because they identify happiness with being stress-free, but, at the same time, I don't think most of them are fulfilled. Most are meanderers, subconsciously but not consciously searching for some meaning in their lives.
Almost every morning I head for the local McDonald's where I purchase a senior's coffee and read a book, usually a metaphysical one. At the adjoining tables, many seniors gather and I often overhear their conversations. They talk about their aches and pains, complain about gas prices, reminisce over the way things were 40-50 years ago, etc. This week is shattered for most of them because the University of Hawaii football team got dumped by Florida this past Saturday.
One day, one of the men at the next table asked me what I was reading. I showed him the cover, which, I believe, had "life after death" in the title, or words to that effect. He quickly backed off and now I get strange looks from the group when I walk in for my morning brew.
Bottom line: If they are "happy," I hope never to be happy. But to each his own.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | September 02, 2008 at 01:47 AM
Great post, MP.
Too cold up North to sit under a tree.
Posted by: Ben | September 02, 2008 at 05:14 AM
I have been purusing your site and looking over what you have said about the paranormal and from a Christian framework I find it to be ridiculous. I know that when people die, they either go to Heaven or they go to Hell. There is no in-between, time on Earth for us after death. The idea that people can linger on here or just "go higher" after death is not a moral one. Only people who accept Jesus as their personal savior can "go higher". I refuse to believe that I will spend my afterlife in the company of pagans and homosexuals.
Posted by: Richard | September 02, 2008 at 08:44 AM
Only people who accept Jesus as their personal savior can "go higher". I refuse to believe that I will spend my afterlife in the company of pagans and homosexuals. - Richard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Judge not that you be not judged for in each measure that you judge you shall be judged in return." - Jesus, Matthew 7: 1-2
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." - Joh 13:34
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." 1 Corinthians 13:1
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God." - Romans 14
So the question is, just how smart do you think God is? Do you think that He/She is smart enough to create a Universe where we learn what it is we are supposed to learn?
Posted by: Art | September 02, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The real way to love people is to teach them about Jesus and the fact that he is the only way to get to heaven. Loving people means telling them what is sin and what is not. The only people that are in heaven are those that understand what sin is and have discarded its purposeful use. I love all mankind, but I do not love the notion that there are people out there that have rejected Gods Son or that there are people out there that put their bodies to a terrible, sinful use. Love means leading people away from such behaviors. So I am sorry, but the people of this world that have recieved true love from God and from his followers have moved on from sin and gone on to paradise. There ARE no homosexuals or pagans or other professed sinners in heaven who died proud of what they have done.
Posted by: Richard | September 02, 2008 at 11:49 AM
There ARE no homosexuals or pagans or other professed sinners in heaven who died proud of what they have done. - Richard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe not in your heaven but there will be in my heaven, and I'm betting that my heaven will be a heck of a lot more interesting than yours will be.
Posted by: Art | September 02, 2008 at 12:14 PM
There ARE no homosexuals or pagans or other professed sinners in heaven
And probably no people who eat shellfish, either! (That's another abomination" identified by the Bible.)
Leave us alone, friend. You're way out of your depth.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 02, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Good post, an interesting thought. I understand what you're saying and there is some truth to what you're saying.
Teaching history I know about the good times and the bad times. The rise and fall of civilizations and you could look at it as part of the Tao or a game.
My definition of a game (may not be yours) is something to pass the time with, learn from and receive pleasure, but beyond that has only temporary meaning. Does anyone care who won the Superbowl the next bay beyond the fans of the winning team? To everyone else it's all about next season.
Life should be more than just a game and here's my thoughts on this:
On the individual level life's choices have severe consequences, just ask the people that have a family member in the military, or had their homes foreclosed on, loved ones with illnesses that they can't get treatment for because they don't have insurance, the homeless, mentally ill with no place to go, victims of crime. Tell them life is just a game with winners and losers -- don't take yourself or any election so seriously. When you're in pain, physical or mental that's reality not a game.
I once worked with a lady who grew up in the Eastern part of German during WWII, her husband spent most of the war in a POW camp in England. She told me that in her lifetime they had been forced to pick up and move with nothing but the clothes on their backs four times. She made my problems seem rather small. They are a great testament of human resilience, fortitude, perseverance and will to survive. I would hardly say though that their life was just a game.
Posted by: pmprescott | September 02, 2008 at 01:52 PM
On the individual level life's choices have severe consequences, just ask the people that have a family member in the military, or had their homes foreclosed on, loved ones with illnesses that they can't get treatment for because they don't have insurance, the homeless, mentally ill with no place to go, victims of crime.
No doubt. But all those problems will pass. Their lives - and ours - will pass. Everything around us will pass. The problems (and joys) are temporary, not permanent; relative, not absolute; real, but not ultimately real.
As a profound song advises:
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 02, 2008 at 02:01 PM
About the scole experiments apparently 5 years after the cessation, the Scole mediums began receiving new communications
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/book_00.htm
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | September 02, 2008 at 04:36 PM
In the board game Parcheesi, every so often (usually when you're close to winning) someone lands on your space and your piece must go all the way back to the beginning.
Once, long ago, I belonged to an early a.m. Parcheesi society. (I'd like to explain the full circumstances, quite humorous in some respects, but not here, not now.)
We had a saying for life's little misfortunes: "C'est la Parcheesi."
Regards
Bill I.
Posted by: Bill Ingle | September 02, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Once, long ago, I belonged to an early a.m. Parcheesi society.
Sounds like a pretty fast crowd you were running with.
:)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 02, 2008 at 07:46 PM
The Richards of the world are unfortunately, FAR greater in number than those of us who have a little wider window of tolerance and understanding for others. Ultimately - isn't Richard, as sort of a cartoon of the boilerplate boring, mythic minded, nefarious nonsensical ninkinpoop that sort of sucks the life out of any kind of overarching love you want to have for your fellow man ( or woman)...doesn't that kind of make you want to stop reading blogs like this and go back to Fantasy Football? At least in my league we're all Jewish, so I never have to worry about a lifetime of purgatory. ( which by the way - eating Shellfish WILL get you if you believe my Uncle Art)
Oh well - thanks Richard. What a buzz kill.
Posted by: irh | September 02, 2008 at 07:50 PM
At least in my league we're all Jewish, so I never have to worry about a lifetime of purgatory. ( which by the way - eating Shellfish WILL get you if you believe my Uncle Art)- irh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well I went out to a Japanese Sushi restaraunt on Monday with my wife and I ate lobster, shrimp, clams, oysters, and crab and so far I'm still here. Not that I'm all that afraid of dying and crossing over. From what I've read in Near Death Experiences and Death Bed Visions Heaven sounds like a wonderful place.
Posted by: Art | September 03, 2008 at 01:20 AM
The Richards of the world are unfortunately, FAR greater in number than those of us who have a little wider window of tolerance and understanding for others.
I thought so too, irh, untilI read the recent Pew Research U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The truth is that they're a decided minority, though they are vocal. From the link:
It seems that intolerance and dogmatism is on the wane, which I found quite hopeful. Maybe there's a correlation between being named Richard and being intolerant. A certain Mr. Dawkins is every bit as dogmatic as our contributor above.
Posted by: Michael H | September 03, 2008 at 08:02 AM
All very interesting...:-) I wonder how many people who are affiliated with NO organized religion also believe in some form of eternal life?
@Zerdini - do you have any writings posted online where you share the experiences you've had over the years?
As someone with a long standing interest in the topic ( yet no personal experience to speak of) I would be interested to read some of what you've seen or witnessed along the way..:-)
Posted by: irh | September 03, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I wonder how many people who are affiliated with NO organized religion also believe in some form of eternal life?
I don't think that question was directly asked, but it is interesting that of the 16% who identified themselves as unaffiliated, 70% believed in a God or divine force of some sort - I think that most who have some measure of faith also have a measure of conviction in survival of death.
What really puzzled me were the 1.6 % who identified themselves as atheist. 22% of them believe in God. (???)
Posted by: Michael H | September 03, 2008 at 05:35 PM
"What really puzzled me were the 1.6 % who identified themselves as atheist. 22% of them believe in God. (???)"
Many of the atheists that I have had conversations with often have had a religious upbringing that caused them to be antireligious. It appears that religious creeds have a way of making atheists.
As mark twain stated: “god made man in his image and then man returned the favor.”
Posted by: william | September 03, 2008 at 11:27 PM
What really puzzled me were the 1.6 % who identified themselves as atheist. 22% of them believe in God. (???) - Michael H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I highly doubt it matters what we say we believe. More than likely belief is irrelevant, agreement is irrelevant, and acceptance is irrelevant. I imagine there is a high percentage of chance that we are all going to be somewhat surprised after we cross over. All our inaccuracies will become illuminated once we make it into that Light.
Posted by: Art | September 04, 2008 at 05:11 AM
I am a Christian too Richard, but not one like you by the sounds of it. I have seen many people who have passed from here. Yup..right here my friend. Demons? Nope...people.
Get this Richard, I know a born again Christian man whose wife passed from here 7 years ago. Now listen...he loves her very much and obviously she does as well because she has come to spend time with him EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS. He tells where he's going if he's travelling and she shows up there each evening as well! Figure that one out my friend. He is a retired, black, veterinarian and he lives about 1 hour away from me.
I also might add this:
(Luk 10:25) An expert in the Law of Moses stood up and asked Jesus a question to see what he would say. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to have eternal life?"
(Luk 10:26) Jesus answered, "What is written in the Scriptures? How do you understand them?"
(Luk 10:27) The man replied, "The Scriptures say, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.' They also say, 'Love your neighbors as much as you love yourself.' "
(Luk 10:28) Jesus said, "You have given the right answer. If you do this, you will have eternal life."
Notice He doesn't say anything about "believing" in Him or "accepting" Him?
Jesus called the religious elite of His day a den of vipers, whitewashed tombs that were clean on the outside and dirty on the inside.
Posted by: | September 04, 2008 at 05:48 AM
Hope said:
”Notice He doesn't say anything about "believing" in Him or "accepting" Him?
St John might have something to say about that:
And Michael, apart from shellfish, don’t forget the prohibition on clothes of mixed fibres:
Quoting from the bible is always going to encourage skeptics to come up with stuff like this. Face it. The bible is an amalgam. In a modern context, over half of it is drivel.
Posted by: | September 04, 2008 at 06:37 AM
“Jesus called the religious elite of His day a den of vipers, whitewashed tombs that were clean on the outside and dirty on the inside.”
It is my not so humble opinion that if Jesus were to come back and give the same sermons as he did two thousand years ago he would be rejected by the very people that claim to be his followers. This may also apply to Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.
The teachings of these masters are often misinterpreted and changed to match the level of consciousness of the followers. Subtle and often profound changes are made to match the existing beliefs of their followers. Can anyone even possibly imagine what Jesus teachings would be after nine eleven and how his teachings would be received by the evangels?
These statements are not intended to be a put down of religion, as I suspect religion as we know it is needed at this stage of our human and maybe even our soul’s evolutionary process. Exactly what may be needed to stabilize a society and maintain a law of progress for our existing level of consciousness development towards love and divine intelligence?
Posted by: william | September 04, 2008 at 07:15 AM
"In a modern context, over half of it is drivel."
Unless of course you're clever enough to be able to interpret it in a highly symbolic way...
Posted by: Teri | September 04, 2008 at 07:58 AM
This is deplorable. I was under the impression that this blog was run by an honest to God Republican, but instead it's the domain of moral relativists. We Christians have worked for years to fight Godlessness and during this struggle we have made firm allies with the Rpeublican party while doing so. It has become clear to Americans that the Republican party is the one that will restore morality, uphold the family, and enshrine the idea that what the first amendment really does is ensure FREEDOM OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION. The writers of the constitution were all Christians and recognized that Christianity is the only real religion that exists. They were only talking about faith in Jesus when they wrote those lines. But here is a Republican and a gallery of approving rouges that has taken the hand-holding position with blasphemers, atheists, and sodomites. You are all disgusting people who have turned so far from the Word that you think you can get to paradise any way you please. I have news for you. Jesus did not die on the cross for nothing.
Posted by: Richard | September 04, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Richard - I have to admit, I'm a life long Democrat - but the new VP candidate is pretty hot, don't you think?
Just for a second try to put the abomination stuff aside - glasses are a great look on a conservative woman - and being from Delaware, personally - I can tell you that Joe Biden is not nearly as sexy.
Posted by: irh | September 04, 2008 at 01:28 PM
"I have news for you. Jesus did not die on the cross for nothing." - Richard
-------------------------------------------
And have a near death experience and come back to life after that soldier stuck the spear into his pericardium and the fluid drained out and then his heart restarted again.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist! - Art
Posted by: Art | September 04, 2008 at 02:02 PM
Richard has made some interesting comments.
I still maintain that it is not certainty that brings about such anger when one reads beliefs that do not align with their beliefs but doubt. It is interesting to me that the prince of peace sure has some angry judgmental followers.
After reading Richards statements is it any wonder that many people have made such statements as Christianity died on the cross?
Posted by: william | September 04, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Hey, Richard. I'm gay! I try my hardest to treat everyone equally and give everyone I can the confidence to succeed and be happy in his or her life, and I have. I've helped multiple people overcome their mental problems and I've given them the power to work towards being a happy and productive member of society.
Sorry you can't see that. =(
Posted by: Øst! | September 04, 2008 at 08:52 PM
The writers of the constitution were all Christians and recognized that Christianity is the only real religion that exists. They were only talking about faith in Jesus when they wrote those lines.
Really? Consider this:
Jefferson's Bible was published and distributed to all members of Congress following a Congressional Act in 1904. I believe MP suggested earlier that you were out of your depth, Richard. You can spew whatever poison you wish, but if you choose to make blatantly false statements, I'm one who will call you out on it.
Posted by: Michael H | September 04, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Richard said: "but instead it's the domain of moral relativists."
What's a "moral relativist"? Is it someone who eats shellfish and wears clothes of mixed fibers, then says he's a follower of the bible?
Posted by: Teri | September 05, 2008 at 12:21 AM
But here is a Republican and a gallery of approving rouges [sic] that has taken the hand-holding position with blasphemers, atheists, and sodomites.
Erm, Richard, I believe someone has forgot to told you that "sodomites" has currently quite another meaning.
You are all disgusting people who have turned so far from the Word that you think you can get to paradise any way you please.
Speaking for myself, no, I don't think that I get a good afterlife any way I please.
I have news for you. Jesus did not die on the cross for nothing.
Just a question. If only firm believers in Jesus can come into heaven AND there is only heaven or hell, what happened to the people in the Old Testament ? I mean, Adam, Eva, Noah, Saul, David etc. etc. and the whole bunch of gentiles (Asians, Native Americans, Africans). They had obviously no clue of Jesus. And let's imagine a baby is born on an airplane and unfortunately this plane goes down and all people including the baby die. The baby isn't christened. What happens with the soul(s) of the people before BC/the baby according to your
belief ?
Posted by: Thorsten | September 05, 2008 at 05:17 AM
My fault. "Sodomy" has only in the Anglo-Saxon landscape the specific meaning of sex without coitus. In continental europe it specifically means...well...
Posted by: Thorsten | September 05, 2008 at 05:33 AM
......sod em all?
Posted by: Zerdini | September 05, 2008 at 06:15 AM
Richard is banned.
This is not a hate site.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 05, 2008 at 06:48 AM
“It is not always possible to identify these faceless players, and this makes winning the game of life highly problematic, if not downright impossible. But play we must! Kalani Hanohano, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain”
Do we have a choice into the game of life? Some suggest we do at a soul level but would a new soul have a choice to participate in this game of life? Some Buddhists call it like being a goose in a bottle.
Most if not all of the mystics I have read report that the level of bliss they now experience or have experienced say that this highly problematic “game of life” was indeed worth it. Maybe part of our evolution of consciousness is getting past or moving beyond that our belief is thee only true and valid belief which appears to be part of this game of life.
Would it not be beneficial to a person, a nation, even a world to better understand how a mind or minds can cling to such beliefs that their belief or beliefs is thee belief. This phenomenon is extremely relevant when we observe religious, political, nationalistic, and other strongly held beliefs.
As I conducted hundreds of seminars with thousands of participants one interesting aspect of those seminars was that most (99%) participants felt they had an open mind. But in reality does anyone really have an open mind and would we be participating in this “game of life” on a physical level if we indeed beyond doubt had an open mind?
Can we even define or recognize an open mind? The term open mind may indeed be a perfect example of an oxymoron. I find it extremely interesting how a person can condemn others for not believing as they believe or some can plot and kill others in the name of their God while defining their God as love. It appears that when we make God in our image such things are possible.
Posted by: william | September 05, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Can we even define or recognize an open mind?
Hard problem. I think as an open mind means crudely that we may accept the opinions of others, it means that only the average judgement of many others can actually decide if someone is open minded.
But even then you have the problem that if the others build a closed circle (religion, politics) you can be pretty convinced that you are open-minded because everyone knows the unthinkable taboo themes and avoids them.
Would it not be beneficial to a person, a nation, even a world to better understand how a mind or minds can cling to such beliefs that their belief or beliefs is thee belief
I recommend
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
where you can find a book about the authoritarian mindset. I believe that such people will continue to exist because like-minded people are simply much more powerful than the same number of individualists because they lacking or suppressing the
internal conflicts in a group.
Posted by: Thorsten | September 05, 2008 at 12:16 PM