Guilty as charged.

Still though, it seems rather arrogant to be giving orders to God and to be preaching to him about moral matters.

I was afraid that Catholics might be offended, however, it seems that criticism of religion is the norm on this site.

@WilliamFleming It is not about criticizing religion, but thinking about religion critically. I spent 3 weeks living with the Trappists in the mid eighteies. St Francis is their boy.
They sing the Pslams in latin every morning starting at 4 AM, do all the Psalms in a year and start over again.

Perhaps the best and worst thing I find in religious thought is that it can inspire people who both believe and oft meditate using the words that sect prefers. This historically created both Trappists, and Branch Davidians, Pacifists and Genocidals, The Inquisition and Pardons.

I find no divinity in that, just the maliability of humans via thoughts.

@Davesnothere What you say sounds reasonable. I was brought up as a Baptist, and as a child was exposed to bible verses that were repeated so often they became an unquestioned part of my psyche for awhile. John 3:16 sums up the whole deluded mess of Christianity IMO.

I don’t see meditation as necessarily a religious action. Meditation for me is just mental discipline that is used to help stay focused on whatever problem is before me. The problem could be solving mathematics or contemplating the nature of reality. It could be playing solitaire.

My approach to the prayer of St. Francis is the same as my approach to Hindu scriptures—I am interested only in viable thoughts about the nature of this overwhelming reality in which we find ourselves. I have no interest in supernatural explanations or in dogmatic rituals.

@WilliamFleming Meditative states are not the province of religion, but humanity. Religion anexed and co-opted a great many human traits and then claimed them "religious and special".
In the above they take a bit of poetry and thinking on that is called a meditation.

I get the same thing with all good poets, no religion required.

You said "I am interested only in viable thoughts about the nature of this overwhelming reality in which we find ourselves"
I am curious as to how you determine what is viable and what is not, when you do not take all the upanishads or vedas or Christianity as it presents itself, but rather seem to gather the bits which suit you.

That would make them viable to your particular perception and interpretation, not Viable to all equally, not universal. Functional to your purpose.

@Davesnothere I have no deep respect for things written down on the basis of their having been labeled as holy scriptures. Anything written down has to resonate based on its inherent meaning and value to me. (or anyone else)

The hymns, legends, myths, rituals, gods and goddesses of the Vedas might be of interest to many, especially those raised in that tradition, but as an outsider I feel no attachment. As a non-Catholic I feel no attachment to their rituals, the saints, the catechisms, etc. In both cases, my role is only to observe in silence and respect the personhood of those who are involved in those religious practices.

But the deep insights presented in the Upanishads are something else and are of a different order. The formulators of Advaita Vedanta did not think of their creation as religion but as metaphysics. Their ideas were attached at the end of the Vedas at a much later date. The Bhagavad Gita even praises those who refrain from religious practices such as sacrifice rituals, and who practice, in their place, Yoga Meditation and contemplation with the goal of enlightenment.
The concepts of the Upanishads have echoed down through the ages, and have provided inspiration for people around the world of various cultural traditions.

Here’s Niels Bohr:

I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.

• As quoted in God Is Not One : The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter (2010), by Stephen Prothero, Ch, 4 : Hinduism : The Way of Devotion, p. 144

Can I ask you to elaborate further on this? What policies and decisions did you see specifically as the problem? Trying to learn more in abbreviated form. If you don't have time to reply, I understand. And it is starting to go off topic.

An idea I picked up from A Course in Miracles is that forgiveness is not about granting a pardon. Forgiveness is to allow your mistaken, judgmental thoughts about someone to be corrected, resulting in peace and happiness for you. The person being forgiven might not even be aware of your forgiveness.

That course is sort of far out in ways, but supposedly God has no need to forgive because God doesn’t have mistaken thoughts in the first place.

I was able to rationalize the course’s precepts enough that I could accept and understand a lot of it, but the average atheist would reject the whole thing out of hand.

It certainly does. It’s the oldest Law Code that is still extant, probably because it was carved into a stele rather than retain d in parchment.

I’m no Assyriologist, or expert on Bronze Age culture, but I am supposing it was on public view so that he law was engrained into the fabric of society, whether you could read it or not.

@WilliamFleming I suspect your right about. I never undertook the Course in Miracles but dipped into it. I thought it was an excellent structure to create a vehicle to get out of dependency.

The idea that forgiveness has nothing to do with the forgiven, per se, also takes a lot of pressure off the individual.

I understand that Marrianne Williamson is running for pres or something, that will be fun!

@LenHazell53 Dangerous people absolutely have to be stopped by whatever means are available. I think forgiveness is for the benefit of the forgiver.

As an analogy, if a rabid dog is running around the neighborhood I will shoot it on sight. If I hold an angry grudge toward that dog, or dogs in general, I am hurting only myself, and for no reason.

@WilliamFleming why give people space inside my head? I forgive and move on. it's all illusory here anyway.

@Geoffrey51 Thanks for mentioning Marianna Williamson. I must sheepishly admit that I had never heard of her. I just read the entire long Wikipedia article—she sounds like a fascinating and capable person but I don’t know if she would be able to lead the country, and I don’t agree with some of her plans. Despite that, if she got the nomination I would probably vote for her. I’m sort of a Libertarian—we’ll see.