Religion

[sweetnpetite]

On another thread, we were talking about how it might be possible to believe something but believe that it might not be true for everyone.

Or if I believe A which precludes B then I must believe that B must be false.

Or as Joe said, do you really believe it or is it just convinent. (in response to cloudy's 'I can accept that what's true for me might not be true for everybody'

First of all, I'd like to point out that Cloudy and Joe are speaking about different kinds of truth. Joe is taling about facts and logic: ie if 1+1=2 then 1+1can't =3. Cloudy is talking about spiritual truth.

Secondly I'd like to say that I have a Tower of Babble belief system. I use that story as a metaphore for what I think happened to Truth. I think it shattered into lots of peices and every group got a small peice of it and then constructed there religion around it and filled in the blanks where necessary.

So I believe that all religions are right and all religions are wrong.

I also believe that many times, just like at the tower of Babble, when we argue about our religions, beliefs and phylosophies, we don't even realize that we are speaking the same truths with different languages. Christianity speaks of a trintiy- Father son and holy ghost, Goddess worship speaks of Maid mother and Crone, Sophia religion has God the Father, God the Mother and God the Son, Phychology has the Ego, Superego and the Id, new age speaks of the god conciousness, the inner child and the talking self. the details are different, but they are all basicly metaphores that serve the same perpose.

I believe gods, angels, devils, fairies, ect are all real, but also that they are metaphores for the forces at work in the universe. I believe that by believing in the metaphores and by visualising them, we can influence them. (such as by praying and visualising 'spiritual warfare' or by casting a spell and visualising the energies according to a different system.

It's like this:

I use a IBM compatible and it works for me. That doesn't mean that I don't think that Mac users are going to hell, or that there computer's don't work for them They are *systems* not Absolute Truth.

The mythology of each religion, the tennets and so forth, they are like a novels based on actual events. They all have truth, but they are not the final authority, and you will find that many of the details differ. But that's ok. We shouldn't kill each other over the details.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Tower of babble!


"Babbel" in Swedish means "incoherent rambling".

 

[sweetnpetite]

Tower of babble!


"Babbel" in Swedish means "incoherent rambling".

I take it you don't know the story then?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

For quite a while I have held that God, Spirit, whatever the heck should be found at the center of any religion, could be likened to a Jewel.

Light strikes that Jewel and is reflected off at many angles. All true religions cluster about that Jewel, concentrating upon the light reflecting from some facet of that Jewel, but none can see the whole Jewel, nor all its reflected light, since it is a three dimensional object.

So, all religions have some amount of enlightenment, but no religion can hold total enlightenment. Nor is its enlightenment exclusive.

The more a religion insists that its enlightenment is the ONLY enlightenment, or that other religion’s enlightenment is fallacious, unsuitable, or evil, the more that religion’s own enlightenment diminishes.


This may sound silly, but it helps me explain to myself why I can believe some part of almost every religion, not all of any religion, nor choose between religions that are diametrically opposed.



Other than describing this image, I try to avoid discussions of religions, or religious belief.



Except for politically active fundamentalist Christian groups that — in my opinion — have little-to-nothing to do with actual religion.

 

[Guest]

Burley, thanks so much for the 'jewel' metaphor, very good. P.

 

[Boota]

I approach from a different perspective. I believe every religion is totally wrong. Any concept we may have of what god is, or isn't, is a wholly man-made concept, and by that nature, flawed. Even having a concept of god is to name the unnameable. Ascribing traits to such a great unnameable is an attempt at putting the Grand Canyon in a shoebox. Religion is the shoebox. The only religious truth is "I don't know." And never trust anyone who says they do.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
First of all, I'd like to point out that Cloudy and Joe are speaking about different kinds of truth. Joe is taling about facts and logic: ie if 1+1=2 then 1+1can't =3. Cloudy is talking about spiritual truth.

TRUTH (www.m-w.com)

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

That would be truth. To designate "logical truth" or "spiritual truth" or "banana pudding truth" is to still be appealing to "truth"--which would be "what is fundamentally accurate, correct, real, etc." (as a summarization).

For instance, just because one labels "I believe in X, where X isn't necessarily true" a "spiritual truth"... doesn't mean it particpates in any meaningful way in what "truth" actually is. It'd be akin to saying "Bush is the most peaceful president ever, to me"--that's not a "political truth" and labelling it as such is a bit of a misnomer, its an opinion. Opinions aren't necessarily truths--no matter how deeply someone believes in it. The deepest opinion that I can fly isn't going to stop me from falling if I jump off a building, even if I call it a "gravitational truth".

So I believe that all religions are right and all religions are wrong.

I believe in something a tad more logically safe... "I do not know if any are right or wrong, even in part--but if one is right, and the one that is right is in direct contradiction with another one... then that second one is wrong." But that's just reason... nothing new there.

I use a IBM compatible and it works for me. That doesn't mean that I don't think that Mac users are going to hell, or that there computer's don't work for them They are *systems* not Absolute Truth.

Essentially (the mixing of metaphors here is a bit rough), you're saying that they are Absolute in that they both exist and don't contradict each other. Macs, IBMs, they don't exist in logical contradition. How about "I believe that it is true that water is H20, but that might not be true for everyone else". By stating a fact (identifying even a part of what is essentially true or real), it exists as an exclusion of things that contradict it.

"I believe the earth is composed of multipe gods and goddesses" is a statement defining what reality has--take then, into consideration "I believe that Christians are right, too, in that there's one God only". One cannot truly have both beliefs, as it represents an impossibility. One can assert them, utter them, talk about them... but, essentially, belief is the acceptance of something as true--and when you accept a truth (even if its not correspondant), you exlude that assertions contraries.

That isn't intolerance, that isn't narrow-mindedness... that's just logic. Personally, I have several beliefs that are contradictory in places.. but I won't ever, ever use the word "true" in regards to them. I am a logician, I believe in logic and the tenets of reason, I also believe in God--something that doesn't pan out, quite yet, with logic. I believe in God, but I've never said "God exists"--as that would be asserting a truth that I can't assert reasonably.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Boota
I approach from a different perspective. I believe every religion is totally wrong. Any concept we may have of what god is, or isn't, is a wholly man-made concept, and by that nature, flawed. Even having a concept of god is to name the unnameable. Ascribing traits to such a great unnameable is an attempt at putting the Grand Canyon in a shoebox. Religion is the shoebox. The only religious truth is "I don't know." And never trust anyone who says they do.

There is nothing logically necessary about God being unnameable or unknowable.

 

[cantdog]

There is nothing logically necessary about God being unnameable or unknowable.

He probably spits on the sidewalk just as we do.

Logic is so silly in this context, Joe.

TRUTH (www.m-w.com)

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

That would be truth. To designate "logical truth" or "spiritual truth" or "banana pudding truth" is to still be appealing to "truth"--which would be "what is fundamentally accurate, correct, real, etc." (as a summarization).

You have quoted the dictionary and ignored it in the same paragraph.

There are clearly three main definitions in the citation, with sub-headings for the third one. Yet having placed the mildly insulting dictionary entry on our plate, you reference to it carries on about the unitary nature of the definition of the word.

I suspect, therefore, that you are bludgeoning us here with half-truths in pursuit of an agenda.

 

[Guest]

It is frustrating -

because I believe we aren't supposed to completely understand these concepts.

We can't rely on facts, many of the so-called experts are strictly in it for the money, and the learned (though well-meaning) expert group is split into severely opposing camps of viewpoint.

Seems hopeless.

Keeping the faith can be pretty damn difficult sometimes.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: It is frustrating -

Originally posted by cantdog
He probably spits on the sidewalk just as we do.

Logic is so silly in this context, Joe.

But essential, when it comes to combatting error.

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
We can't rely on facts

Sure we can. Facts are facts. It sounds like you mean to say "we can rely on the things those guys say are facts"--to which I'd entirely agree.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
There are clearly three main definitions in the citation, with sub-headings for the third one. Yet having placed the mildly insulting dictionary entry on our plate, you reference to it carries on about the unitary nature of the definition of the word.

I suspect, therefore, that you are bludgeoning us here with half-truths in pursuit of an agenda.

It wasn't intended to be insulting--only accurate. If you know of another way for people to intelligently discuss the meanings of words, I'm all ears. Got to start somewhere, no?

Unitary nature? No. I said that all of these things participate in "truth" (or "appealing to"). The state of being the case. The body of real things. A transcendant fundamental or spiritual reality (that was in bold, if you didn't intend to draw attention to it, I apologize)...

So, that the word "spiritual" came up has you believing me in half-truth? Or something else. I confess I need a clarification about what you're saying. "Fundamental or spiritual reality" is still talking about what is "generating, structured, physical, etc." (fundamental) or spiritually... real.

Spiritual reality.

Spiritually real.

Real.

True.

I think I need a clarification of what you were saying.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Sure we can. Facts are facts. It sounds like you mean to say "we can rely on the things those guys say are facts"--to which I'd entirely agree.

That isn't what I mean. And I understand what you are saying, facts vs. truths.

However - I don't think on any religious topic the experts can even agree on a specific set of facts.

No wonder it is so frustrating for us mere mortals.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
That isn't what I mean. And I understand what you are saying, facts vs. truths.

However - I don't think on any religious topic the experts can even agree on a specific set of facts.

No wonder it is so frustrating for us mere mortals.

Well, it is possible that facts can be had (only because it isn't logically impossible). But, facts are possible. People may not have them (nobody I've ever read, anyway). But, by definition facts are actuality--actually is reliable, we just have to find it.

 

[gauchecritic]

Unfortunately I have been swayed, majestically, by Star Wars (but forget the minihedrons or whatever they are)

I really believe that there is a 'force' which emanates from all living things, that surrounds us and penetrates us. And is a part of being 'alive'.

(I'm pretty sure he must have stolen the idea from a 'proper' faith)

When it comes to logic and truth I tend to believe that it is all wordplay. Which isn't to say that religion is any different.

In this case I subscribe to Pratchett. Anything you can think of or believe is 'true'. (For any given value of 'truth'.)

The site that I frequent, when researching answers to logic (apart from Monty Python) is The Atheism Web.

It seems to me that, were it not for religion, then there would be no logic.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Well, it is possible that facts can be had (only because it isn't logically impossible). But, facts are possible. People may not have them (nobody I've ever read, anyway). But, by definition facts are actuality--actually is reliable, we just have to find it.

Joe! Cut it out. You're turning me (your one fan, haha) away from this thread. Stop saying stuff that makes so much logical sense it becomes utterly irrelevant and boring (and do not argue it with me). Use your imagination once in a while. Please.

said frankly, with good intent,

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Originally posted by perdita
Joe! Cut it out. You're turning me (your one fan, haha) away from this thread. Stop saying stuff that makes so much logical sense it becomes utterly irrelevant and boring (and do not argue it with me). Use your imagination once in a while. Please.

said frankly, with good intent,

Perdita

Logic is like good dick. It is hard, it is invading, it is there to do a job, and when it makes a point...

...um...

...it...

...ejaculates.

(I always sucked at logic dick analogies)

 

[hotchkiss]

Personally I think religion is merely a damn fine way to exploit the masses, whether it be to control, fleece, murder or whatever.

For some reason humans cannot accept they are just a supposedly highly intelligent life form no more significant than any other apart from the fact we have the terrifying ability to wipe ourselves and our home planet out of existance.

Through the ages the supposed good books ie: the bible for one has been rewritten to suit the aspirations of a political leader until the whole point has been lost. Its just a guide to how you live your life!

All creeds of christianity and muslim faiths all preach love and they've committed centuries of atrocities on even their own believers.

Hopefully soon someone will realise that the only thing we should worship and dont is this small blue/green ball we all cling to and shove religion where it belongs.

Controversially yours

HK

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'll refrain from commenting in my predictable way to that one... but... damn, Dita, its just begging for it.

 

[gauchecritic]

For some reason humans cannot accept they are just a supposedly highly intelligent life form no more significant than any other apart from the fact we have the terrifying ability to wipe ourselves and our home planet out of existance.

Controversially yours

HK

Ourselves yes. The planet, no. The planet has gone through more in millions of years than man could ever throw at it, and it's still here. (Pratchett again)

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Logic is like good dick. It is hard, it is invading, it is there to do a job, and when it makes a point...
...um...
...it...
...ejaculates.
(I always sucked at logic dick analogies)

Dicks are not logical.

They may have a mind of their OWN, but they are certainly not logical.

But if we are going to mention dicks on a religious thread, I should blushingly add that one of the few ways to get an "Oh God!" outta me happens when my husband uses his.

Ahem.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is frustrating -

Logic is like good dick...

Eeeewwwww!

Perdita

 

[Guest]

I'll refrain from commenting in my predictable way to that one... but... damn, Dita, its just begging for it.

And laddie, that's precisely why it would be a waste of your time responding. Too easy a target for the likes of you. P.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
And laddie, that's precisely why it would be a waste of your time responding. Too easy a target for the likes of you. P.

Well played, woman. Well played. I'll enter your little game... for now. *cockin' da' eyebrow*

 

[hotchkiss]

Ourselves yes. The planet, no. The planet has gone through more in millions of years than man could ever throw at it, and it's still here. (Pratchett again)

Gauche

Suppose your right, but they were natural events. We do have the ability to wipe life from the globe and enough to knock it off kilter.

Hopefully theres some one out there "in a galaxy far far away" that has more sense than the human race.

Worried

HK