Is Religious Diversity Desirable?

Momma Angel wrote:

I see it's rather peaceful here tonight? That's different.

Could be they're all at some other thread right now where the bullets're whizzing.

0 Replies

Wouldn't surprise me a bit! I glanced at a few of those political forums. I got a bit irked (yeah, that's a good word for it).

Told them they should spend all that energy on coming up with some solutions. I wonder how many of them actually vote? I find that most that complain are the ones that don't vote. One said they tried that once (voting to change their state's government) but it didn't work. So, I said, oh, so you quit? That won't change anything.

I am just so amazed at how it seems there are so few willing to take responsibility in this society. And to be honest with you, if Frank would just channel his energy in a more positive manner, he could be one heck of an advocate for something. He's got tenacity, you gotta give the love that!

0 Replies

diag and momma, you two always give me such a good shot in the arm!
thanks, your positivity is much needed here

Smile

that Frank character is really interesting, but he's a fireball!

RealLife makes me think. He has a way.

...Mamma, about what you were saying about people politics bitchin' and apathy...

I'm in Canada, and it is amazing to me how many people don't even bother to vote! Especially people my age: it's an inconvience to them to walk down the street and vote. Weird. There are a lot of 'underground' political circles amongst the young, but I don't see a lot of them applying it. It's usually the "Fight the System, Dude! " routine. I think I come from a cynical, wary generation: politicians are just idiots, and those before us only made a mess. Even though I don't consider myself a patriot, I feel Canadians got a pretty good deal to work with!

0 Replies

Fireball Frank doesn't limit his energies to A2K. He's active in his hometown politics, has multiple numbers of close friends and he is never amongst strangers for any length of time. Mostly because he doesn't abide with nonsense, and, although I hesitate to speak for him because he needs so little help, he believes, as I do, that the USA is in the hands of people who do abide with nonsense and who endanger us all by their belief that the voices in their heads are divine.

That is nonsense. Truly believed, heartily felt, absolutely inspired, utter nonsense.

Asking if there should be diversity in religion is like asking if it's okay to be slightly deluded rather than completely deluded.

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Asking if there should be diversity in religion is like asking if it's okay to be slightly deluded rather than completely deluded.

I understand where you're coming from, Joe. However, institutional religion does serve a role in the evolution of human consciousness. Fairy tales and metaphor are valid ways of approaching the truth.

0 Replies

You mean as coping devices, not as approachs to truth. The truth isn't found in the belief in the supernatural, it's concealed by it.

J

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Neologist, what do you mean by that?
How would the existence of God influence the answer?

Sorry it took so long to get back.
If there were no god, what difference would it make?
If God exists and has no standards, same difference.
If we have a responsibility toward God, we owe it to ourselves (and to Him) to find out what it is. That may mean no diversity.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

You mean as coping devices, not as approachs to truth. The truth isn't found in the belief in the supernatural, it's concealed by it.

No, Joe. I mean approaches to truth. This is why we tell our children fairy tales. Not just to entertain them, but to provoke their imaginations.

0 Replies

The inherent and not always obvious failure of didactic (Inclined to teach or moralize excessively) lore, be it religous or fairy tales is that the message given has no internal validity. What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers which renders them, at best, tolerant (what a ugly thing "tolerant" is).

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The inherent and not always obvious failure of didactic (Inclined to teach or moralize excessively) lore, be it religous or fairy tales is that the message given has no internal validity. What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers which renders them, at best, tolerant (what a ugly thing "tolerant" is).

The Jews mistakenly believed they were in some way superior. They were in their special position only by virtue of Abraham's faith. They showed repeatedly they were no different than any other nation. God dealt with them to serve as an example.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
The inherent and not always obvious failure of didactic (Inclined to teach or moralize excessively) lore, be it religous or fairy tales is that the message given has no internal validity. What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers which renders them, at best, tolerant (what a ugly thing "tolerant" is).
The Jews mistakenly believed they were in some way superior. They were in their special position only by virtue of Abraham's faith. They showed repeatedly they were no different than any other nation. God dealt with them to serve as an example.

And then, as if the catholics weren't bad enogh, came the protestants.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

neologist wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
The inherent and not always obvious failure of didactic (Inclined to teach or moralize excessively) lore, be it religous or fairy tales is that the message given has no internal validity. What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers which renders them, at best, tolerant (what a ugly thing "tolerant" is).
The Jews mistakenly believed they were in some way superior. They were in their special position only by virtue of Abraham's faith. They showed repeatedly they were no different than any other nation. God dealt with them to serve as an example.

And then, as if the catholics weren't bad enogh, came the protestants.

No argument here.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers

Do you consider your non-belief to be superior to their belief? If so, how are you any better than the ones you are disparaging?

0 Replies

The really interesting thing here is how a discussion about diversity has degenerated into something fairly venomous. Sad, and we should all feel shame. (Shame can be a useful instrument in moving us forward.)

0 Replies

It's a religion forum AllThisBeauty. Things get ugly really fast. Stay at the Philosophy forum more often. Razz

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

flushd wrote:
Neologist, what do you mean by that?
How would the existence of God influence the answer?
Sorry it took so long to get back.
If there were no god, what difference would it make?
If God exists and has no standards, same difference.
If we have a responsibility toward God, we owe it to ourselves (and to Him) to find out what it is. That may mean no diversity.

That may also mean simply acknowledging that there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable, meaningful guess as to whether or not a God even exists....let alone whether or not it has requirements of humans...and what those requirements are.

I suggest that is the case....that there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable, meaningful guess as to whether or not a God even exists....let alone whether or not it has requirements of humans...and what those requirements are.

If you...or anyone does see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonble, meaningful guess that there is a God (especially a personal God)...and that the God has requirements of humans...

...why not offer it up for discussion.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
What is also obvious is that any and all of the sons and daughters of Abraham are by self-definiton superior to all non-believers

Do you consider your non-belief to be superior to their belief? If so, how are you any better than the ones you are disparaging?

Are you even sure that Dys is a "non-believer?"

He may be a "believer"...but simply "believe" in something different from what you "believe" in.

I, on the other hand, am a NON-BELIEVER.

And YES...YES...YES...

...refusing to guess and pretend that it is not a guess by calling it a belief...is definitely superior to guessing and pretending it is not a guess by calling it a belief.

0 Replies

Is Religious Diversity Desirable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know