A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?
Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58749] Thu, 17 September 2009 21:44 Go to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751



I don't mean "My religion is better than your religion" stuff. Instead I want to be ABSTRACT.

Let us postulate a religion and call it Squidge. Not Squid, but Squidge.

Squidge has a supreme being that has never been seen, but whose words or human interpretation of those words is written in scrolls sealed in a place of worship at the intersection of five lands whose boundaries come together in PEACE at that spot. All five lands are adherents of Squidge. They have similar languages but not the same language exactly. And some lands have more wealth than others, but they are all prosperous.

So we are not speaking of any religion that any of us knows, is part of, is familiar with.

The religion was founded by good people, truly good people, who created a framework centuries ago to promote good treatment of all humankind as part of the worship or veneration of the supreme being.

The human race, with all its frailties, preconceived ideas and prejudices has run this religion for the past 1,000 years.

There are other religions. They are NOT the religions we know in the world today, nor in the past. Some are larger than Squidge, some smaller. Some have similar views to it, others are very different.

That is the scene set.

So, what state are we in now with this religion?

[Updated on: Thu, 17 September 2009 21:49]




Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58757 is a reply to message #58749] Fri, 18 September 2009 07:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



Think of all the beautiful buildings of the world, particularly cathedrals and their equivalents in other religions. Think of beautiful works of art in whatever form, visual and aural. Think of people inspired to stand out and do good works. Think of the mechanism behind the order of the universe. [Some people will argue about the chaos in the universe, but it is not exclusive.]

These are things and the inspiration for them that I am prepared to attribute to Squidge or the supreme being as I am more like to think of him. [Yes - him.]

[Btw on a personal level I find Squidge an unfortunate name as I once taught a boy called Squidge, though he did spell it 'scwij'.]

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58758 is a reply to message #58749] Fri, 18 September 2009 10:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



What is the next stage?

Believer #1: Squidge is spelt S-Q-U-I-D-G-E
Believer #2: No, it is spelt s-c-w-i-j
Believer #1: Anyone who spells the name s-c-w-i-j is a heretic.
Believer #2: scwij is scwij and ever shall be.
Believer #1: If you do not recant you will die in sin and be cast into eternal fire!
Believer #2:scwij is scwij and ever shall be.
Believer #1: You must be killed with the utmost pain and suffering for your heresy so that you will be spared the fires of eternal damnation.

Where does it go from there?

J F R (who will not be around here until Monday)



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58759 is a reply to message #58749] Fri, 18 September 2009 10:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Yes, Timmy. JFR has the right of it. Since there can be no evidence for any proposition about the religion there will have to be endless undecidable arguments about it.

And I'm not sure whether any religion in real life was founded by truly good people. How could one tell? Certainly if what they wrote in the books is representative of their morals they were very bad people indeed.

And there is no point to the whole exercise. Prayer doesn't work and it is very doubtful whether any religion has done more good than bad. Even your 'ideal' religion must teach people to believe things for which there is no evidence. Teaching people to do that is bad. People that have learned to do that are impaired morally because they cannot judge so well what actions have good results and what have bad results, because they believe some of the results are hidden from them, never to be revealed before death (and, of course, in my view certainly not then).

And why do we attribute the greatness of some works of art to religion? Surely all the evidence is that people from cavemen to Francis Bacon have produced works of art which sometimes are associated with their religion and sometimes not. If nobody were religious I doubt whether there would be many fewer works of art. A wide variety of cultures and societies have produced great buildings that inspire awe, but whether they were for human sacrifice or an allegory of human sacrifice I'd prefer that the trouble and expense was spent on great theatres or concert halls or sports stadiums. It is so very difficult to please god!

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58767 is a reply to message #58749] Fri, 18 September 2009 15:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Az is a devout adherent of Squidge. Although only 14, he is lauded by parents, teachers, and the community for his generous nature, his impeccable observance of all rules be they civil or religious in nature. Az always tries to better himself. He relies on the authority figures in his life to show him what good behavior is. His self discipline is exemplary. The observance of all rules and traditions is the basis of Az's life. He measures his self-worth by it. Actually, his strict observance defines Az to himself. He has never become aware of the approval of his peers...why look to them for guidance when the supreme being talks to him in his heart?

Az sits on the edge of his bed. He is looking down at the pills in his hand. 'Will this many get rid of my hurt?' he wonders. Az has fallen into a secret forbidden love. His heart pines for closeness to the object of his affections.

Az considers 'It's a grave sin to knowingly harm myself. Unspeakable punishment.'. So he pours the pills back into the bottle. Az wonders what wrong he might have done to bring on his evil desires.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58769 is a reply to message #58767] Fri, 18 September 2009 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Za, on the other hand rejects Squidge. He can see that it is about as valid as horoscopes and faith healers. The time Squidge adherents spend going to and from church and sitting there and praying or other devotions at home, he spends learning his school work and exercising his body. The equivalent of the money they give to the church (partly spent on defending priests against accusations of misconduct) he gives to causes that promote good. As a result of the way he spends his time he is top of his class and a fit and valuable member of several school teams. His behaviour at home is friendly and helpful; he feels gratitude for the things his parents and siblings do for him especially as he isn't told they are doing it because a supernatural squidge told them to. He responds by doing many things his parents and extended family are grateful for. He is sensible enough to distinguish good rules from bad and to obey the good ones (except when slavish obedience would have harmful effects) and to avoid getting caught disobeying the bad ones.

Za knows what it is like for other people to be nice to him and in turn he is nice to other people and when he feels strongly for someone he shows it. His parents do not disapprove. He is allowed to express his feelings and is helped to avoid social obloquy from the Squidgies (by not allowing them to see where his affections lie or by ensuring he will be supported against prejudice before admitting anything).

Za is happy to accept himself and is aware how lucky he is to have parents who don't want him to grow up racked by guilt and who help him to avoid problems when his standards clash with those of society.

And when Za gets really old and is in constant pain from an incurable illness he is allowed to commit suicide because his family are all aware that on balance he would have a life not worth living if he were to try to go on. Maybe Za tries to put up with the pain or to last long enough so that advances in medicine hold out hope of a cure but sooner or later he gives up. There are no religious ceremonies after his death; his family don't want any and if they did the squidgies would probably insist he was buried in unconsecrated ground at the crossroads.

Macky, I think Za has a better life and does more good than Az could ever do.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58770 is a reply to message #58749] Fri, 18 September 2009 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



At first I disagreed with Nigel but then I realized that many of the great ancient works of art, and certainly the cathedrals he mentioned, were commissioned by religious organizations and may not today exist if it were not for the backing and financial support of religions.

I do agree with JFR in that man, through his greed for power and desire to dominate others, would corrupt Squidge just as he has actual religions. I also agree with Anthony regarding the premise of any real-life religion being founded by truly good people. My actual thought when I read that in Timmy's post was, “That is a huge assumption regarding any religion we know today and likely inaccurate.”

Anthony has a good point regarding works of art; there is no reason to believe that they would not have been created anyway, at least something similar by someone.

What is the basis of our real-world religions' anti-homosexual stands? Many societies throughout history accepted homosexual relationships between men and between men and boys. Is Macky making a valid assumption that Squidge would be anti-homosexual?

Religions, Squidge included, were/are created by humans and run by humans and will therefore be corrupted by humans.

JimB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58772 is a reply to message #58769] Fri, 18 September 2009 19:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Az and his coworker Za and a few others are assigned a task. Za exudes self confidence and leadership capability. He is instrumental in coordinating the workers efforts to complete the task on time and under budget. At the end of the project, Za is embarrassed when he receives a special award. He feels that his coordinating ability was no greater and no less that the contributions that each of his team mates had added. In the meantime Az is jealous of Za, because he feels that authority is always correct and that authority's decision to award Za means that he,Az,is a less valuable person. Az considers all the successes of other people he works with, as failure judgments against himself. Az knows this is not right. So he logically controls his emotions and congratulates his peer.

[Updated on: Fri, 18 September 2009 19:28]




Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58773 is a reply to message #58772] Fri, 18 September 2009 20:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Wow! I think that you are making Az into a really nice guy and Za seem a little arrogant. So Za is me and Az is you.

Kisses!

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58774 is a reply to message #58770] Fri, 18 September 2009 20:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



Religions were created to explain the inexplicable. As science develops and rationalises our knowledge, religion(s) will become marginalised.

However, institutions of all kind - and trade unions come to mind here - after they have achieved what they were intended to achieve cannot bring themselves to disband and must look for other causes. Then they mutate, because the vested interests will still want their power and wealth even though there are no longer grounds for their existence.

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58776 is a reply to message #58773] Fri, 18 September 2009 21:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



"Wow! I think that you are making Az into a really nice guy and Za seem a little arrogant."

Are you being facetious, sarcastic, does some prejudice make you interpret it that way, or is my writing really that bad?



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58778 is a reply to message #58772] Fri, 18 September 2009 22:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751



But what does that have to do with religion?



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58779 is a reply to message #58774] Sat, 19 September 2009 04:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



Doom and gloom for Squidge. It just cannot overcome the human element which must run the engine of the religion. It's leaders mold the fundamental teachings to HIS likings. The followers, all good people, just do not have the nack for leading, or even making suggestions, on how Squidge should be. Its history suggest a good beginning. Maybe religion should quit its base and rediscover its truths once a generation. Religion was not meant to last eons.:-/



Raymundo
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58780 is a reply to message #58779] Sat, 19 September 2009 04:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



Sorry I definitely was not impartial.



Raymundo
Az to Za  [message #58781 is a reply to message #58776] Sat, 19 September 2009 10:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



None of those things, Macky. I was genuinely amused and a bit touched by your post and I thought I ought to recognise that. As Timmy keeps telling me "Play nicely!" and I thought, for once, I would.

The thing about talking to believers is that I am torn between wanting them to lose their faith (to see the dark as Peter Medawar put it) and fearing lest I cause them to lose their faith with devastating effects on their behaviour. (Somehow when people lose their faith they tend to have their marriages break up, lose their houses, take to drugs or to travelling the world as a vagrant or all those things at once ending by catching AIDS.)

So I tend to take discussions about religion lightheartedly and back out when they get heavy. I guess I also manage to upset people who think I ought to treat such matters seriously.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58782 is a reply to message #58749] Sat, 19 September 2009 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



The answer is right here in front of us, religion is a construct of man not of God. The thing that is most important is that one decides for ones self what one chooses to believe, plain and simple. There are many name used to try and describe the nature of God, some say there is no God. Neither I nor anyone has the right to judge anyone else’s beliefs. As much as I would like people to know the God I know, there is nothing I can say to effect their journey of discovery it is that personal. That being said one should never put that journey in the hands of anyone else!

Peace



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58784 is a reply to message #58778] Sat, 19 September 2009 14:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



I'm sorry Timmy,
But any talk about religion that doesn't mention its effect on individuals is sort of meaningless to me. Talk about the religious institutions at large usually turns into a list of goods and bads. I think we all know those..



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Az to Za  [message #58785 is a reply to message #58781] Sat, 19 September 2009 14:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Anthony,
The thing is, that you mistook the good guy for the bad guy - your guy Za is obviously morally superior to my Az. I was trying to show how certain religious peoples' interpretation of what is good is really fucked up. It seems that you might think that just because I do not flatly reject religion, that I must be a dogged adherent of same. I do not reject, yet I continually consider and sift through what I'm expected to believe. I don't swallow the spiel hook line and sinker.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58786 is a reply to message #58782] Sat, 19 September 2009 15:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Very well put, arich.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58787 is a reply to message #58779] Sat, 19 September 2009 16:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



Raymundo wrote:
> Doom and gloom for Squidge. It just cannot overcome the human element which must run the engine of the religion.

Yes, man's hatred, greed and thirst for power over others is too corrosive for anything to survive, even something as sacred as religion or as vital as our descendants or the earth itself. I perceive doom and gloom for not only Squidge but mankind itself.

Raymundo wrote:
> It's leaders mold the fundamental teachings to HIS likings.

Generally when "his" is capitalized as above it is referring to God or Christ but I think this sentence is most correct when the "his" is referring to Squidge's leader(s).

Raymundo wrote:
> Religion was not meant to last eons.

Wow, what an interesting thought! I had not considered that before and perhaps your are right. On the other hand, perhaps man's thirst for knowledge is also one of his faults: an inability to accept the unknown. As Nigel said, "Religion was invented by man to explain the inexplicable" and the most inexplicable of all is what happens after we leave this lifetime.

What would our society, our history, be like if religion had never been invented? Or if religion had died out after a few hundred years? Were the crusades and religious wars that fill ancient history caused by man's basic elements or by the religion(s) he created? Interesting thoughts.

JimB
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58788 is a reply to message #58784] Sat, 19 September 2009 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751



Motivational speakers have the same effect that you mention on people. I think you have to divorce the effect on an individual from the concept of religion.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58789 is a reply to message #58749] Sat, 19 September 2009 17:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



A bit off course and long but I feel relevant none the less. Please read if you will, it is interesting. It is not mine and can be found at the following URL:

http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=philosophical&action=display&thread=6436


The Meaning of the Last Judgment

The Final Judgment is one of the greatest threat concepts in man's perception. This is only because he does not understand it. Judgment is not an essential attribute of God. Man brought judgment into being only because of the Separation. God Himself is still the God of mercy. After the Separation, however, there WAS a place for justice in the schema, because it was one of the many learning devices which had to be built into the overall plan.

Just as the Separation occurred over a long epoch, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long epoch, and perhaps even longer. Its length depends, however, on the effectiveness of the present speed-up.

It is noted that the miracle is a device for shortening but not abolishing time. If a sufficient number of people become truly "miracle-minded" quickly, the shortening process can be almost immeasurable. But it is essential that such individuals free themselves from fear sooner than would ordinarily be the case, because they MUST emerge from basic conflict if they are to bring peace to the minds of others. [tipping the scale]

The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God. Actually, it will be undertaken solely by man, with Christ's help. It is a Final Healing, rather than a meting out of punishment, however much man may think punishment is deserved. Punishment as a concept is in total opposition to Right-Mindedness. The aim of the Final Judgment is to RESTORE Right-Mindedness TO man.

The Final Judgment might be called a process of Right-evaluation. It simply means that finally all mankind must come to understand what is worthy and what is not. After this, their ability to choose can be reasonably directed. Unless this distinction has been made, the vacillations between free and imprisoned will cannot but continue.

The first step toward freedom, then, MUST entail a sorting out of the false from the true. This is a process of division only in the constructive sense, and reflects the true meaning of the Apocalypse. Man will ultimately look upon his own creations, and will to preserve only what is good, just as God Himself once looked upon what he had created, and knew that it WAS good.

At this point, the Will will begin to look with love on its creations, because of their great worthiness. The mind will inevitably disown its miscreations, and having withdrawn belief from them, they will no longer exist.

The term Last Judgment is frightening, not only because it has been falsely projected onto God, but also because of the association of "Last" with death. This is an outstanding example of upside-down perception. Actually, if it is examined objectively, it is quite apparent that it is really the doorway to life.

No person who lives in fear is really alive. Their own final judgment cannot be directed toward themselves, because they are not their own creation. They can apply it meaningfully, and at any time, to everything they have ever created, and retain in their real memory only what is good. This is what their own Right-Mindedness cannot but dictate.

The purpose of time is solely to "give each one time" to achieve this judgment. It is their own perfect judgment of their own creation. When everything that one retains is lovable, there is no reason for any fear to remain in them. This IS their part in the Atonement.


How Will The World End?

Can what has no beginning really end? The world will end in an illusion, as it began. Yet will its ending be an illusion of mercy. The illusion of forgiveness, complete, excluding no one, limitless in gentleness, will cover it, hiding all evil, concealing all sin and ending guilt forever. So ends the world that guilt had made, for now it has no purpose and is gone.

The 'father of illusions', is the belief that one has a purpose; that they serve a need or gratify a want. Perceived as purposeless, they are no longer seen. Their uselessness is recognized, and they are gone. How but in this way are all illusions ended? They have been brought to truth, and truth saw them not. It merely overlooked the meaningless.

Until forgiveness is complete, the world does have a purpose. It becomes the home in which forgiveness is born, and where it grows and becomes stronger and more all-embracing. Here is it nourished, for here it is needed. A gentle Savior, born where sin was made and guilt seemed real. Here is His home, for here there is need of Him indeed. He brings the ending of the world with Him.

It is His Call God's children answer, turning to Him in silence to receive His Word. The world will end when all things in it have been rightly judged by His judgment. The world will end with the benediction of holiness upon it. When not one thought of sin remains, the world is over. It will not be destroyed nor attacked nor even touched. It will merely cease to seem to be.

Certainly this seems to be a long, long while away. "When not one thought of sin remains", appears to be a long-range goal indeed. But time stands still, and waits on the goal of God. Not one thought of sin will remain the instant any one accepts Atonement for themselves.

It is not easier to forgive one sin than to forgive all of them? The illusion of orders of difficulty is an obstacle the child of God must learn to pass by and leave behind. One sin perfectly forgiven by one child of God can make salvation complete. This is not understood and is meaningless to anyone here now. Yet it is the final lesson in which unity is restored. It goes against all the thinking of the world, but so does Heaven.

The world will end when its thought system has been completely reversed. Until then, bits and pieces of its thinking will still seem sensible. The final lesson, which brings the ending of the world, cannot be grasped by those not yet prepared to leave the world and go beyond its tiny reach.

What, then, is the function of the child of God in this end of all lessons? They need merely learn how to approach it; to be willing to go in its direction. They need merely trust that, if God's Voice tells them it is a lesson they can learn, they can learn it. They do not judge it either as hard or easy. God points to it, and they trusts that He will show him how to learn it.

The world will end in joy, because it is a place of sorrow. When joy has come, the purpose of the world has gone. The world will end in peace, because it is a place of war. When peace has come, what is the purpose of the world? The world will end in laughter, because it is a place of tears. Where there is laughter, who can longer weep? And only complete forgiveness brings all this to bless the world. In blessing it departs, for it will not end as it began. To turn hell into Heaven is the function of God through His children, for what they teach are lessons in which Heaven is reflected. And now sit down in true humility, and realize that all God would have you do you can do.

Do not be arrogant and say you cannot learn His Own teaching. His Word says otherwise. His Will be done. It cannot be otherwise. And be thankful it is so.



"Christology"
Is a field of study not to be mistaken with traditional Christian practice, or Denominational or temporal theology.

The wiki link deals with the meaning of "Christology" and its historical progressions of understanding.

Today, the study of "Christ Consciousness" could be equated to a sub-category of our generation's evolution in the study of "Christology".

This thread hopes to explore Christology, and its potent to harmonize all faiths, historical and future, including cosmology and all creations.


-------------------------


I will be posting commentaries in this thread, from time to time as I come across them. They will be predominately written or composed by others. With some additions of my own.

I will not be providing a link to them, nor providing the authors name, nor source. This so not to complicate the readers judgment toward the source, but remain solely toward the content within the commentaries.

Feel free to add your own, within the context of the opening "thread defining" post above.



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58790 is a reply to message #58787] Sat, 19 September 2009 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



JimB you wrote:
As Nigel said, "Religion was invented by man to explain the inexplicable" and the most inexplicable of all is what happens after we leave this lifetime.

There is nothing inexplicable about it, absolutely nothing at all.

Everybody knows what happens. We've all seen pets and other animals die. We know people are animals too and anyone who thinks there is something special about people (that means that when they decay they don't decay) is deluding themselves. We all know that people do decay. There is no evidence of anything else.

Everything else is just wishful thinking - a bit like some of the stories I read here but far more pernicious.

Agatha Christie's title had the right of it "Death comes as the end."

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58791 is a reply to message #58782] Sat, 19 September 2009 17:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear arich. You wrote:
Neither I nor anyone has the right to judge anyone else’s beliefs.

Did you know a right is a power? I do have the power to judge other people's beliefs. I can judge them to be well or ill founded. Everyone has this power.

I disapprove of the beliefs of the British National Party. Most people would agree with me. I disapprove of the beliefs (most of them anyway) of the british Conservative party too. I disapprove of all the beliefs of every religion that I know.

Why shouldn't I?

Surely I may have opinions about anything and so may you.

Why are opinions about what other people think excluded from what I am allowed to think about?

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58792 is a reply to message #58789] Sat, 19 September 2009 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear arich,

I find your long post quite unitelligible. I'm sorry that I do not understand it at all and think it is words without meaning. As soon as I try to makes sense of a sentence it becomes patently impossible.

What on earth can be meant by saying the last judgement will extend over a long epoch. What IS a long epoch? Are there short epochs? If time stands still how does anyone detect a long epoch. None of it makes any sense at all.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58794 is a reply to message #58790] Sat, 19 September 2009 20:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



When I underwent a major operation five years ago (the only one I have ever had), I believe I went through what it meant to die. At 9.20am my life was switched off, just like that, except I came to at 12.50pm. I had no dreams during or after. I had no indication that the anaesthetic was going to take effect.

Consequently I have no fear of dying. I am prepared to believe in eternal life because I know that the atoms which make up my body won't be destroyed although the molecules will be. My fear is the circumstances that lead up to my death.

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Az to Za  [message #58812 is a reply to message #58785] Sun, 20 September 2009 20:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751



pssst! Anthony wasn't the only confused one, you know! I got the same meaning out of it! Parables can fail! I hated the Prodigal Son because it shows, for me, the reverse of what it ought to show!



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58817 is a reply to message #58787] Mon, 21 September 2009 05:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



The"HIS" is refering to the gender male appointed leaders of religion and/or religions. I love to believe that religion doesn't need gender but alas, the male has dominated. But a female leader is no guarantee for leadership either. It could be just wishful thinking.
The 'lasting eons" is a personal belief that the total dogmatic weight of religion hinders its spirituality base and allows for more conservative forces to force more dogmatic teachings to rule rather than have change occur over the eons. Alas, religion collapses under heavy conservative dogma as the years roll.
I imagine the beginnings of the major religions bear no resemblance to present day religions. Human's basic dark needs seem to overwhelm the passivity of religion. And Squidge is no exception.



Raymundo
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58822 is a reply to message #58791] Mon, 21 September 2009 13:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



Does this make you’re judgments right for anyone else but your self?
I think we should always be discerning but that most often we should keep our discernment’s to our selves.

I find the fact you profess no beliefs rather spurious. At least to thin own self be true!

LOL this is a discerment gone bad i.e. become a judgment!!!

[Updated on: Mon, 21 September 2009 13:38]




People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58823 is a reply to message #58792] Mon, 21 September 2009 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



I am not surprised.Wink



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Can we discuss the concept of religion impartially?  [message #58828 is a reply to message #58792] Mon, 21 September 2009 21:08 Go to previous message
E.J. is currently offline  E.J.

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 565



F.Y.I.

An epoch is kind of time "independent".
According to Oxford** an epoch is:
"a period of history or of a persons life marked by notable events."

Using this definition, an epoch can (in theory) be 5 minutes long or a million years long.

(** Oxford Dictionary of American English - your definition may be different)



(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
Previous Topic: The Equinox
Next Topic: A different kind of performance art
Goto Forum: