Is Religion Like a Toy? (point of view, God, Christ, religions)

[Master Vigil]

You missed the point kreeden. At the core, you are not god. God is infinite, eternal, and the first cause. Are you that? Of course not, so the rest of your post is pointless. Again, the core is what seems to be agreed upon, the unknown. By saying you are god is putting a trivial difference in there. By saying the christian god is better than the islam god, is putting trivial differences in there. By saying god is a "he" and not a "she" is putting trivial differences. As well as, my book is better than your book, my religion is the only true religion, etc.... I am looking for similarities between religions with this study, not outlandish ideas.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

"I think reducing it our differances reduces everything to triviality "

That is exactly my point, I think the differences between christianity, islam, judaism, taoism, buddhism, shinto, paganism, etc... are all trivial.

Not quite. All those differences have effects on how we view goodness, and what we consider good. When I say "everything," I include goodness. It reduces everything to triviality, as my arguments above demonstrate (and with real-world examples).

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

"Either I believe nothing, or I am in conflict."

I never said you wouldn't be in conflict. But better to be in conflict with what matters, and not with the trivial differences between religions.

But this begs the question. What is worth it? You are defining what is worth arguing and fighting over, but other people share differences on that. We will always have conflict, and this conflict will always result in poor feelings and hatred. No system can eliminate that.

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

"Reducing everything to its most basic form does away with even goodness, and that's why I can't agree with your system."

Or at its most basic form, goodness is inherrant. Or instead of goodness, we have simplicity. Which in my eyes is goodness anyway. My point is, if we get rid of all the trivial differences, there will be no more hatred, no more fighting, and goodness will be more prevalent.

However, we can't define what is its most basic form is, without making religious or other metaphysical assertions. That, of course, is saying "What I believe is the most basic, so what I believe is what you should believe" in that respect. You may not require someone to be a Taoist, but you must require people to share your most basic views on goodness, and that isn't neccessarily so. Again, we have the definition and "what is it" problem.

When I say, it reduces everything to triviality, it literally does. Take my abortion example. If you believe abortion is murder, you have an ethical imperative to stop it. If you believe it isn't, then you will also fight for the right to do it. Which is it? Appealing to the most basic definitions thing, even if it is possible to agree on them, won't solve complex issues like that, and they result in violence, slander, and hatred from both sides. What do they do, give up fighting for what they think is good, or do they continue fighting what both sides believes is an intolerable affront? I can ask the same thing about all-comprehensive economic systems (and we must decide on those if socieity is to operate), philisophical systems, etc.

I don't think your approach can stand in the face of such problems. I think it will literally reduce everything to triviality. Those most basic assumptions are worthless without a system of interpretation and application, which is what all these philosophies and religions do. If it needs these, though, then they simply cannot be viewed as inconsequential. In order for your theory to hold water, it must be applicable, and liveable, but I think it fails in that respect, and it certainly cannot create a system where "there will be no more hatred, no more fighting, and goodness will be more prevalent." Rather, it will decrease goodness, because what we understand goodness through, will be reduced to triviality. There is no utopia, and nothing we can do can create it.

[Master Vigil]

I see your points No's. And what I suppose happened is my analogy dealt with the differences I viewed as trivial when dealing with the divine. Goodness, abortion, and all that jazz was not present in my thought patterns. My whole idea was that all religions at the core are the same. And the differences made by humans were made to be the most important parts of the religions. I wasn't talking about goodness, or anything like that. My thoughts were based more on, my god is better than your god. My book is the right book while yours isn't. God is he, not she. Stuff like that. I definitely don't see everything as trivial, but I definitely do see alot of things about religions that are trivial. But again, this is my opinion, as is yours.

[No*s]

Yes, I have enjoyed the conversation.

I realize that taking it that far wasn't your intent, but I felt it was the logical conclusion, so that's where I went. I tend to argue that way in a lot of cases . Thanks for the fun conversation and frubals, which I assume was you.

[Master Vigil]

The frubals was me yes. I didn't mind taking it that far. I feel one day I will be able to debate it better. But just not now. It needs more thought. But I thank you for helping me learn. It was fun.

[No*s]

No problem. I like to debate and often learn from it. It was certainly fun, and maybe we'll get to do it again when you've thought it through more .

[kreeden]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

You missed the point kreeden. At the core, you are not god. God is infinite, eternal, and the first cause. Are you that? Of course not, so the rest of your post is pointless. Again, the core is what seems to be agreed upon, the unknown. By saying you are god is putting a trivial difference in there. By saying the christian god is better than the islam god, is putting trivial differences in there. By saying god is a "he" and not a "she" is putting trivial differences. As well as, my book is better than your book, my religion is the only true religion, etc.... I am looking for similarities between religions with this study, not outlandish ideas.

No Master V , I believe that you are missing the point . Although I don't actually believe that I am god , there are beliefs that teach just that . There are beliefs that teach that we are a part of God . And there are those that teach that we are Gods , in our own rights . Yes , some even go as far as to say that we are the Creators . Like I say , I personally don't agree with that , but to ignore them leaves your arguement short .

If all you are looking for are similarities , then that is all that you will find . If you look for nothing but differences , then again , that is all that you will find .

[Master Vigil]

Kreeden, my point is that the religions who teach that we are gods are focusing on the trivial parts of religion. You saying that there are religions out there only proves my point more. Get it? I take those religions into my theory as well, they are the ones that are focusing on the wrong parts.

[Pilgrim of this Reality]

The very idea of "religion" causes problems and shouldnt be used. For instance. a Christian should be who a person is, not what a person does. Doing is not the same as being. This applie to all "religions" and belief systems.