14
   

What is religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 06:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
Your mother wears combat boots
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 06:44 pm
@Leadfoot,
Yeah, but they are petite.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 06:49 pm
@edgarblythe,
good, and thanks for sure

On religion, I don't mind it existing, but don't rattle at others about it.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 06:51 pm
@ossobucotemp,
I don't mind people being religious. I just like to get in my two cents worth now and then.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 06:52 pm
@edgarblythe,
Donations of any amount are appreciated
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 07:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
For every ten dollars you give me I will gladly pay you five.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 07:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Yes, I think it tells a coherent (and wonderful) story about what God is doing here.

Your idea that it is logical that a sentient creator's thinking is similar to yours happens to fly in the face of the "coherent" story about the god which states: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Quote:
That story is only evident if you look for an interpretation where the statements are not contradictory . . .

Yes, but I just pointed out the contradiction you embrace. You asked why it isn't logical that a sentient creator would create beings who think in a similar way. So I showed you that, contained in the very story you speak of, it is made clear that ". . . as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2017 07:20 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Doesn't that only prove he has a wife?

It was the spiritual experience that I was claiming to be hard/impossible to prove.

I've never said that love can be proven. I am pointing out that there is a difference between claiming love for an unseen belief and claiming love for another human being.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 06:43 am
@Glennn,
It's too late Glennn, you've already said you don't believe the book is valid, so why on earth would I take the interpretation of someone who has already admitted it makes no sense to them?

I've told you how the passages you mentioned do not contradict in my way of seeing it. You will have to find your own solution - or not. I hope you do though.
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 09:25 am
"All religions are true in that they are metaphorical of the human and Cosmic mystery." Josepth Canpbell

"So half the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts. And so, they're lies. Those are the atheists."
Joseph Campbell
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 10:04 am
@coluber2001,
That's a misstatement of facts, concerning atheists. Not all of us call them lies, some call them misinterpretations.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2017 10:27 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It's too late Glennn, you've already said you don't believe the book is valid,

I don't recall saying that I think the book is valid. So I have no idea what you mean by saying that "it's too late." However, I do recall the contradiction you admit to embracing. You expressed your opinion that it is logical that a sentient creator would create beings who think in ways similar to itself even though the book you claim is valid clearly states that ". . . as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

So, either the statement from the book is invalid, or your idea about the creator being thinking in similar ways to yourself is invalid.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 07:08 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote: "It's too late Glennn, you've already said you don't believe the book is valid,"

I don't recall saying that I think the book is valid. So I have no idea what you mean by saying that "it's too late." However, I do recall the contradiction you admit to embracing. You expressed your opinion that it is logical that a sentient creator would create beings who think in ways similar to itself even though the book you claim is valid clearly states that ". . . as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

So, either the statement from the book is invalid, or your idea about the creator being thinking in similar ways to yourself is invalid.

I meant it is too late for you to convince me that your argument is valid.
You have already said you think the book is contradictory. I didn't say you thought it was valid, I said the opposite.

I gave you one example of why in my view your chosen verse does not contradict our being "made in the image of God" but here's another.

I understand the basic concepts of physics in the same way as Richard Fineman or any other physicist but I don't have anything like the depth of understanding that they do. I could not begin to follow the equations they draw on their white boards, and yet we are both human beings who understand logic and reason in the same way.

So no, I am not claiming that I, like God, have the intimate understanding of physics that was necessary to create the universe and life, but I know enough about it to appreciate the accomplishment. Same thing goes for the things he is even more concerned with. Like love for example.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 07:44 am
@Leadfoot,
You've stated that it is logical that the god would create beings who think in similar ways as itself. But your statement is contradicted by the passage below which is found in the book that you yourself have determined is valid.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Your contention is that your statement does not contradict that passage. That means that your definition of the word contradict is different from mine. I obtained my definition from the dictionary. Where did you get yours?
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 08:25 am
"As I get older I perceive Life has its tail in its mouth."

Lawrence Ferlinghetti

https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1655212/367182248/stock-vector-ouroboros-367182248.jpg
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 12:33 pm
@Glennn,
Read your quote carefully.
Quote:
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Our definition of contradiction is not the issue, the definition of 'higher' does seem to be. Higher does not mean foreign, alien or fundamentally different as you seem to think. It means his is a deeper understanding of things than ours.



Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 04:33 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Higher does not mean foreign, alien or fundamentally different as you seem to think. It means his is a deeper understanding of things than ours.

Yeah, but so was Einstein's, or Tesla's . . .

The god is said to be infinite. How can the thinking of a finite being be similar to that of an infinite being?
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 10:00 am

"The meaning of life can be revealed but never explained."

Kenneth Rexroth
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 02:20 pm
Is there not one self-proclaimed mystic left on this website? What's a mystic? Not a theist, not an atheist, not agnostic. Animals are mystics, plants are mystics, and even feldspars and other rocks. But none of these are literate.

Meister Eckhart was a mystic--13th century , so was William Blake, Jack Kerouac, Kenneth Rexroth, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs and the Beats, kuvasz, JL nobody, Einstein, and a million more in the Arts, and everybody else in the world. They don't know they're mystics, but I do.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 09:18 pm
"Religion is nothing but institutionalized mysticism. The catch is, mysticism does not lend itself to institutionalization. The moment we attempt to organize mysticism, we destroy its essence. Religion, then, is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Or, at least diminished."

Tom Robbins, Skinny Legs and All

With this quote in mind, I think it's time to kick the word "religion" in the ass, out the window, cancel it, forget it, and never use it again. Mysticism is a much better fit.

So the question becomes: what is mysticism?
Tell me.
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2021 at 12:18:42