>>Matter of fact, I did study philosophy. Very interesting. But I got the impression after awhile that it was people just talking themselves in circles until they painted themselves into a mental corner, so to speak.<<

It's not the conclusion that matters. It's what led you to it--the thought process. That is what is important because without reason, humans are doomed. We are what we are because we depend on reason--not fur, not big fangs, no razor-sharp claws, not the ability to run at 50 mph. We're cold so we make a fire. We're hot so we make an AC. We're far away so we make an automobile or a jet plane. If we don't want to go there but just speak to someone there, we make a telephone. Without reason, we are lost. God is not going to help us. What gets us through the day is the use of reason. Like anything else, to be good at it you must exercise it. That's what philosophy is for. It is a vitally important exercise that religion does its best to kill. That's why the vast majority of Americans are intellectually morbidly obese. A big fat mind bloated and utterly dependent on pop and trash culture until the mind can no longer move.

>>Life is simpler than philosophy courses make it out to be.<<

Your mental life should never ever be simple. It should be as complex and cluttered as my house (my house is half-museum, half-junkyard but an extremely interesting junkyard). The best way to ward off diseases as Alzheimer's is by working out that mind. Not a guarantee but it does minimize your chances of getting it.

>>Way simpler.<<

Mentally simpler is not a virtue.

>>Philosophy profs tend to be enamoured with their own cleverness, I find, and they end up becoming very clever...very wordy...and very empty inside. (but there are exceptions to that, I'm sure)<<

Really, now, go talk to a fundie if you want to meet someone very wordy and empty inside. At least philosophy students are clever. That's a reward of using the mind.

>>Politicians did not invent religion.<<

I didn't say they did. I said royalty invented religion.

>>The kind of people who are utterly, completely uninterested in politics became spiritual teachers...and the politicians glommed onto the whole thing once it was an established power structure with a large following. Then they could use it.<<

Religions are inherently political tools. A religion doesn't thrive where the king is against it. The only ones that come down to us today are those that royals allowed to hang around. And that would only be because that religion served their interests.

>>I bet you have never talked to or witnessed a real spiritual teacher in your life, or read any good books by any either, or you would not dream for a moment that politicians invented religion.<<

Once again, royals invented religion not politicians. Religion is a political tool used by royals to maintain their power.   

>>You want Jesus' original teachings? Okay...

He taught nonviolence, forgiveness (of both self and others), truthfullness, honesty, responsibility, love of all people (even those you don't like or have some problem with), respect for the civil laws of your society, respect for other people (specially your parents), to honor and respect and love God, equality of the sexes (to the point he could express it in that time, which was no joke), to harm no one, to help other people who are in need, the golden rule, and all the usual moral stuff. He taught that people aren't made for the law....the law is made for the people. In other words, the law is intended to serve the people, not the other way around.<<

And where did you learn this?

>>The things he taught are found at the heart of virtually every great religion<<

Exactly. It was the same message. He taught nothing original. Nothing came from him that tells me only he could have come up with it. Everything he said, you can find somewhere else from an earlier period. It's smoke & mirrors.

>>(although discrimination against women is common in most of them...and certainly has been in the Christian churches. That again is NOT Jesus' fault.<<

I'd have to say it is. He should have known what happens to women in religion. But he went ahead with it anyway. And before you say that Jesus did not intend to found a church read Matthew 16:18. He should have known what would happen.

>>I'd say that Paul had quite a bit to do with it though. Paul was a weird character in a lot of ways. I don't much like what I feel coming from Paul.)<<

Paul's Christ is not the gospelic Christ. They bear no similiarities and the gospels never mention Paul nor Paul them.

>>That's some of it.<<

But where did you get it?

>>You could put it all in these few words: Love others, love God, love yourself, love life, fear nothing, and hate no one.<<

I can cite examples to show he also preached hatred, distrust, and elitism. So you're just picking and choosing the Jesus you like best. That makes him a figment of your own imagination.

>>That's not easy.<<

Or necessary. We all get by without practicing any of that.

>>For most people it seems to be impossible. That's why they don't really want to hear about it, and they don't really want to try it either. There's only one person in 1,000 who wants to try it, from what I've seen, and one in 10,000 who achieves it. I certainly haven't achieved it, but I know it's real.<<

I don't even consider it good advice. If you love everybody, you're going to be taken advantage of. My personal advice to the human race is:

Use your head and keep your wits about you and when your bullshit detector goes off, heed it.

>>It's the one thing that can heal an insane human mind, but the insane mind does NOT want to hear about it. No sir. That would mean surrendering, not to Christianity, not to a religion, but to love. And that would be hard, hard work. It would demand sacrifice.<<

I don't know what surrendering to love entails but I'm willing to bet it is no more healthy or necessary than surrendering to hate. I say maintain a balance of the two and you'll be alright.