Religious Shopping Cart

[bicker]

I can accept a compromise. How about "consistently reacting"?

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a start.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

I'm not arguing that the information is bad for learning. It's great that there's more education in the world! The issue for me is the mixing and matching of beliefs because of a person's need for validation.

"See? Not only does Jesus say it, but so does Krishna and Buddha."

The problem here is that these faiths have largely different qualities. If one wants to be a Hare-Buddhian, that's one's perogative... but you have to wonder if they are missing some of the important points that each of these leaders made that completely differ from one to the other. Yeshua claims that no one comes to the father except through himself. Buddha (depending on the sect of Buddhism- I think that this is fairly common, though) claims that there is no self. I have no idea what Krishna was up to. (I haven't looked into Hinduism in depth yet.)

Either way, all claim a different message, though some important points come up: compassion, love (two different things, btw) and they seem similar. But without a complete understanding of each faith, taking the good parts with the bad and getting deep into it, how is one to truly understand what is meant when one says "love" and another says "love"?

Nicely said!

Though, I think it is more important that a person discovers their own version through their own interpretation. Otherwise, they are attempting to put themselves into a puzzle rather than fitting appropriate pieces into their own puzzle of reality.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

I think it is more important that a person discovers their own version through their own interpretation. Otherwise, they are attempting to put themselves into a puzzle rather than fitting appropriate pieces into their own puzzle of reality.

Nicely said!

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Nicely said!

Though, I think it is more important that a person discovers their own version through their own interpretation. Otherwise, they are attempting to put themselves into a puzzle rather than fitting appropriate pieces into their own puzzle of reality.

This is something no one could help even if they wanted to

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by bicker

With all due respect, I really think Buttons should stop trying to reword what I'm writing, and stop trying to argue against things I haven't written, and instead actually read what I'm writing, and if desired, reply to that.

Ok, from now on, I'll discuss things in your terms.

I do read what you're writing, btw. I just don't see your views as glorious as you see them, hence my attempt to make some balance. That's all I've been attempting by not restating your exact terminology. As for the rest, I blame that on lack of sleep

Either way, I'll be back to this tomorrow.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by bicker

Hah! You're a laugh-riot. I think you should reconsider the words you've used in this thread. For example, you categorically referred to the search for truth from multiple sources as a "self serving mish mosh", and as "shallow". These are assumptions you made as part of the premise of other assertions, showing that you assume these qualitatively derrogatory concepts, rather than are considering their possibility. So you've effectively colored all your replies with assumptions about the answer to the question that you yourself asked in the first place. It seems to me that you need to "go have a cool down" and think about whether you're being genuine or disingenuous in your discourse.

I didn't mean to upset you. Apparently I did. My mistake.

Originally Posted by bicker

If you feel stressed out, perhaps you should look inside instead of trying to find the cause externally.

If I felt stressed, I'd say so. I have nothing to hide here. I don't know what you're getting at in the internal vs external....*shrug*

Neither do I. What a person chooses for themselves is up to them. The problem happens when folks claim that such an approach is the best approach, generally.

But you seem to say that your approach IS the best approach. At least that's what I get from the words you use. Let me know if you think this is false. It seems that you think anyone who feels their faith has complete truth that it is automatically ignorant... and I don't understand why you'd say that unless you'd experienced it for yourself. Have you? What makes organized religion ignorant, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by bicker

A non-sequitur is a reply to a comment that doesn't actually relate to the comment. The prototypical example of this type conversational device is: Someone says, "The sun is hot." And someone replies, "No, because ice cream has no bones."

It is not uncommon in online discussions for folks replying to assertions that they do not like to reply not to the assertion itself, but instead reply to something easier to argue against. That seems to project the impression that the original assertion was effectively rebutted when nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn't ask you what non-sequitur was....I asked you to clarify the bit about all my conclusions being prepackaged, or some such. That's ok, though.

Originally Posted by bicker

Will do. Generally, as you'll see below, your attempts to reword generally were off the mark, mostly due to how your rewording failed to capture the actual point being made, and/or drove a qualified concept to absurdity by perverting it into an absolute concept.

In my humble opinion, honestly, we are both guilty of this. See, you see me doing it, and I think I see you doing it. lol. It happens.

Originally Posted by bicker

The words "take ... out" means different things in different contexts. Beyond that, your out-of-context and crude rewording destroys the original point of the words I wrote.

Would you prefer it if I only used your terms to describe what I see happening? It wouldn't be accurate...

Originally Posted by bicker

2) Gleaning wisdom from wherever it may emanate has substantial advantages over blinding society to the wisdom of many perspectives, and/or venerating the error inherent in one favored perspective.

(Note especially the words, "has substantial advantages over", which are parallel to the words you evidently overlooked the first time you read that concept, when I posted it earlier.)

I didn't overlook it... I simply thought it was overly dressed up to suit what you think is wisdom and advantage. Which is why I didn't restate your terms. Also, I see the above as becoming something akin to this:

3) Gleaning wisdom from God has substantial advantages over blinding society to the wisdom of the one true God, and/or venerating the error inherent in other faiths.

...which is what, I gather, you are trying to avoid. It's your argument, simply switched around to the purposes of another group, say, organized religion. This argument gets us nowhere. It's just one person's "wisdom" against another's. It's not universal, since we cannot possibly choose correctly which is the wiser statement - yours or mine?

Originally Posted by bicker

No one used the word "must". Must is an absolute. Didn't you earlier express some concern about black-and-white perspective? Yet here you are reading something that is qualified but restating it as black-and-white. Why would you do that?

I think you expressed that fear first, while also accusing me of it. I'm restating something I thought you said - which is why I did it, but that's why I asked you to clarify if I had been wrong.

Originally Posted by bicker

3) Anything that practically everyone has come to realize as truth, is among those things that are most likely to be generally true.

It's going to be rather hard to find the most general truths of the world. But I applaud your efforts in it! ("Most likely" is not an exact science... but somehow you want me to believe that wisdom is universal?) Maybe I've missed something. Please, connect the dots for me.

Originally Posted by bicker

4) In matters of spiritual truth, each person gets to make their own decision in that regard, without there being a "right" or "wrong" decision applicable generally.

How does this fit in with your theory of error? What is right to keep as a universal truth versus an error... and is there a "right" and wrong"? I'm very curious.

Originally Posted by bicker

If you go back to your original statements, before you started trying to distort what I wrote to make it easier to argue against it, you'll see that I very much read what you wrote, and responded directly to it, honoring it to the extent that I took it at face-value, perhaps rejecting it, but rejecting it as you stated it, not rejecting some distortion of what you stated.

a rare and noble quality for RF

It was not my intention to distort what you said... I just don't agree with much of the wording. Sorry, I won't make the mistake of changing it this time.

Originally Posted by bicker

To the point: Wisdom is not limited how I see it. Indeed, my approach removes limits on wisdom that other approaches employ. In other words, the exact opposite of what you've asserted, here, is the reality.

ah HA! I guess I just didn't notice it from what you had said earlier. What, exactly, is "spiritual wisdom" to you? Can one be wise without understanding error, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by bicker

To the point: I'm not lying to myself nor to you. The nature of truth is exactly what I wrote first: Wisdom is universal, and so is error, and so it is reasonable to expect that every source of spiritual context will be a mix of wisdom and error.

Self deception often goes unnoticed. (Sorry, just got through an entire semester on Existentialism.) But nonetheless, how can one come to wisdom if there is no error?

If it is truly the best route to only take that which is wise from any religious tradition, are we not also missing the lessons of error within these traditions? In other words, what are we learning if we don't understand the mistakes that created this wisdom?

[bicker]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

Ok, from now on, I'll discuss things in your terms.

That's not necessary; just don't reword what I wrote to distort it into something easier to argue against.

Originally Posted by Buttons*

I do read what you're writing, btw. I just don't see your views as glorious as you see them, hence my attempt to make some balance.

Changing the meaning, and perverting qualified comments into absolute, is not balance.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

But you seem to say that your approach IS the best approach.

Actually: All I've said is "better". Again, you've taken a qualified statement and perverted it into an absolute to try to make your point.

Do you see what you're doing?

Originally Posted by Buttons*

It seems that you think anyone who feels their faith has complete truth that it is automatically ignorant...

What I've said is "ignorant" is "assuming that any one specific religion has a lock on spiritual wisdom". So again, you've distorted a qualified statement into an absolute: My statement allows for many perspectives to be the complete truth, while your perversion of my statement doesn't.

These are not pedantic issues. That go to the core of the point. Your distortions seem to not allow for the perspective that there can be many paths to spiritual wisdom. While I'm writing that there are many paths, you're apparently interpreting that to mean that there aren't many paths, i.e., thinking (apparently, and erroneously) that I'm saying that my path is the only path. It's like reading "black" and thinking "white"... no wonder you don't understand what I'm writing!

Originally Posted by Buttons*

Would you prefer it if I only used your terms to describe what I see happening?

No. Use your terms to describe your perspectives; use my terms to describe my perspectives. And, with all due respect, that wouldn't be necessary if you weren't so consistent in your perversion of what I've written when you've tried to restate it in other terms.

Originally Posted by Buttons*

I didn't overlook it... I simply thought it was overly dressed up to suit what you think is wisdom and advantage.

Well, you were wrong about that. As I hope I've demonstrated to you, several times already, by dismissing words that don't fit your personal view of what you oppose, you're not going to have any chance of understanding what you're reading, and therefore there is no way for us to have a discussion. If you're just writing replies without understanding what you're replying to, then you might as well just post stand-alone replies, instead, since at least in that case the fact that you aren't understanding what you're replying to isn't as obvious.

Originally Posted by Buttons*

Which is why I didn't restate your terms. Also, I see the above as becoming something akin to this: <snip>

No, that's the opposite of what I wrote. I wrote "multiple" and you rewrote it as "single". Opposites!

Originally Posted by Buttons*

It's your argument, simply switched around to the purposes of another group, say, organized religion.

You didn't "switch it around" -- you changed it to the opposite.

Again: Do you see what you're doing?

Originally Posted by Buttons*

This argument gets us nowhere.

Are you willing to accept that reasonable people can disagree about matters of spirituality? If not, then that might be why this discussion is getting you nowhere.

Originally Posted by Buttons*

It's just one person's "wisdom" against another's.

That is how you apparently have chosen to see the world, as an either/or thing, instead of allowing for both people to be providing wisdom, even if what they're saying conflicts.

At this point, let's get to the point where, at least, you're willing to discuss things without distorting them in your replies. If you're willing to commit to that, I think we can continue with a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, I fear I'll be spending most of my time simply correcting your mischaracterizations of what I'm writing. That's a waste of bandwidth, don't you think?

[Duck]

Buttons*,

Doesn't the "shopping cart" approach to selecting aspects of a more personalized religion resemble in some way, the practices of pre-Christian Europe? Many pagan deities were more regional (as seen in place-names in England and Scandinavia (H.R Ellison documents fairly extensively, I am pretty sure in Gods and Myths of Northern Europe)), implying at least in my mind, that those deities were related in some way to clans or tribes.

This seems to me to be a more personallized approach to religion, an overarching framework common to the culture with aspects that may differ based on one's own personal spirituality.

I know that this is not the most coherent post, work is pretty distracting tonight.