• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Transcendent Truth

lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Buttercup said:
Right. And one person's rationality is another person's extreme fundamentalism.

I love my husband very much but every once in a great while I don't understand him no matter how hard I try. Can you imagine a whole world of people who aren't emotionally invested in each other trying to agree on what's just? Or, the worldly unanimous way to go about sustaining peace?
Click to expand...
Yes, although I'd say that love is not just an emotional committment, but a transcendent truth. :)

Look at the idiocy in Darfur. We see that situation as completely irrational.....yet to those doing the slaughtering, they obviously disagree, at least for now.
Click to expand...
It is senseless. It's more than disagreement...it's greed and power out of control.
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Ozzie said:
I wonder if the aliens would leave us with "transcendent truth" in the cargo.

From the perspective of either party, the other would resemble a "ship of fools" devoid of transcendent truth (premised on the belief one can possess such a thing).
Poor fools, both of them.
Click to expand...
But maybe they'll bring a huge refrigeration machine that can re-freeze our ice sheets and save our BBQ!
 
Buttercup

Buttercup

Veteran Member
lunamoth said:
It is senseless. It's more than disagreement...it's greed and power out of control.
Click to expand...
I meant that the rebels wouldn't agree that our viewpoint is rational....the interpretations of the situation are quite different. It's always going to be a problem with mankind. :(

Gotta go.....great thread, thanks for sparking things up tonight! :)
 
Ozzie

Ozzie

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
Yes, although I'd say that love is not just an emotional committment, but a transcendent truth. :)
Click to expand...
Maybe its nothing more than an agreement.

It is senseless. It's more than disagreement...it's greed and power out of control.
Click to expand...
It is chaos which arrives without agreement (in human systems predicated on cooperation).

So maybe extend the love example to all. Is "love" a moniker for mutual benefit?
Click to expand...
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
lunamoth said:
Yes, that's the point of a transcendent truth. You think it's right and you won't give it up. But, I don't think that necessarily leads to violence and social unrest. Disagreement, struggle to be in relationship with others who do not have the same truth, yes. But not violence. That's the point of of the essay above.
Click to expand...
It does not have to lead to violence, but it is just plain turning a blind eye to think that it doesn't.
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Ozzie said:
Maybe its nothing more than an agreement.
Click to expand...
How is love an agreement? To me that seems to leave quite a lot out of the concept of love, and also implies that two people need to both give their intellectual assent for love to have affect.

It is chaos which arrives without agreement (in human systems predicated on cooperation).
Click to expand...
It's that too.

So maybe extend the love example to all. Is "love" a moniker for mutual benefit?
Click to expand...
I don't think love is a moniker for mutual benefit. Love does not expect benefit in return. It is selfless.
Click to expand...
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Mestemia said:
It does not have to lead to violence, but it is just plain turning a blind eye to think that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

But violence is the potential with or without faith in a truth, a good, that is higher than we are. Violence/oppression is assured when we don't have that faith because everything is then relative and short of 100% agreement the only way to work out the best government (system of human relationships) is by threat of force.

I'm not arguing that faith in a higher truth easily or automatically would lead to peaceful understanding...it hasn't and it probably won't. But:

To be concerned about truth is at least to recognise that there are things about humanity and the world that cannot be destroyed by oppression and injustice, that no power can dismantle. The cost of giving up talking of truth is high: it means admitting that power has the last word. And ever since Plato's Republic political thinkers have sought to avoid this conclusion, because it means that there is no significance at all in the witness of someone who stands against the powers that prevail at any given time; somehow, political philosophy needs to give an account of suffering for the sake of conscience, and without a notion of truth that is more than simply a list of the various things people prefer to believe, no such account can be given.
Click to expand...

A higher/transcendent truth does not necessarily equate with God, but with a standard that is eternal (can't think of a better word that I have not already used, truth, good, etc.). Even in Buddhism there are principles that are transcendent, and a Buddhist would die before giving in to a political system that asked him/her to deny those principles.

There may be conflict among principles, but in the broader discourse, there is no reason to shut religion and faith out of the public discussion on the excuse that "religions lead to all/most of the social conflict we see today."
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
lunamoth said:
Violence/oppression is assured when we don't have that faith because everything is then relative and short of 100% agreement the only way to work out the best government (system of human relationships) is by threat of force.
Click to expand...
This quote was the first thing that I thought of when I read this:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." --Albert Einstein
​
Violence and oppression is no more 'assured' with it than without it.
This is merely wishful thinking.

lunamoth said:
I'm not arguing that faith in a higher truth easily or automatically would lead to peaceful understanding...it hasn't and it probably won't. But:
To be concerned about truth is at least to recognise that there are things about humanity and the world that cannot be destroyed by oppression and injustice, that no power can dismantle. The cost of giving up talking of truth is high: it means admitting that power has the last word. And ever since Plato's Republic political thinkers have sought to avoid this conclusion, because it means that there is no significance at all in the witness of someone who stands against the powers that prevail at any given time; somehow, political philosophy needs to give an account of suffering for the sake of conscience, and without a notion of truth that is more than simply a list of the various things people prefer to believe, no such account can be given.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why must there be something that cannot be destroyed by oppression and injustice?
Why is it unacceptable that there may well be no "meaning" of life?

lunamoth said:
A higher/transcendent truth does not necessarily equate with God, but with a standard that is eternal (can't think of a better word that I have not already used, truth, good, etc.). Even in Buddhism there are principles that are transcendent, and a Buddhist would die before giving in to a political system that asked him/her to deny those principles.

There may be conflict among principles, but in the broader discourse, there is no reason to shut religion and faith out of the public discussion on the excuse that "religions lead to all/most of the social conflict we see today."
Click to expand...
Seems to me that religion is merely a convenient route of justification.
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Mestemia said:
This quote was the first thing that I thought of when I read this:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." --Albert Einstein​
Violence and oppression is no more 'assured' with it than without it.
This is merely wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I agree that violence and oppresseion are not more assured with it, as I went on to say in my post. And I totally agree with Einstein's quote. That's related to William's point, I think, in that resorting to violence and oppression is a sign of lack of faith in a higher truth. So why be 'good?' Is there a unversal understanding of 'good' based only on reason?


Why must there be something that cannot be destroyed by oppression and injustice?
Why is it unacceptable that there may well be no "meaning" of life?
Click to expand...
It's not that there 'must.' But, if there is nothing that cannot be destroyed by worldly power (oppression and injustice), and life has no meaning, what keeps us from merely using force to get what we want. The highest 'good' is then power. Do you think that's an acceptable situation?

Seems to me that religion is merely a convenient route of justification.
Click to expand...
One of many. But this is not just about religion, but about truth and the endeavor to find it and live by it.

Why did the writers of the Declaration of Indepedence claim that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator? To justify that we need not bow to the earthly power at that time represented by Britain. Would 'we just think you're wrong and we don't want to pay your taxes anymore' have had the same meaning and effect?
 
Buttercup

Buttercup

Veteran Member
The highest "good" is love. Love, in theory, would be the gatekeeper for peace. The only problem is getting everyone to agree at the same time that's the plan. :p
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Buttercup said:
The highest "good" is love. Love, in theory, would be the gatekeeper for peace. The only problem is getting everyone to agree at the same time that's the plan. :p
Click to expand...
Well you know that I agree with this completely Rhonda. I don't think you actually need everyone to agree for love to have an impact on the world. Of course, the more that agree, the greater the impact.

I'm still out of frubals for all the excellent replies in this thread by you and Mestemia. Curse the System!
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
lunamoth said:
I agree that violence and oppresseion are not more assured with it, as I went on to say in my post. And I totally agree with Einstein's quote. That's related to William's point, I think, in that resorting to violence and oppression is a sign of lack of faith in a higher truth. So why be 'good?' Is there a unversal understanding of 'good' based only on reason?
Click to expand...
I have no idea.
How can one say with anything other than guess work that it is not from reason?

lunamoth said:
It's not that there 'must.' But, if there is nothing that cannot be destroyed by worldly power (oppression and injustice), and life has no meaning, what keeps us from merely using force to get what we want. The highest 'good' is then power. Do you think that's an acceptable situation?
Click to expand...
Huh?
Perhaps you needs define 'force' for the purposes of this thread.

lunamoth said:
Why did the writers of the Declaration of Indepedence claim that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator? To justify that we need not bow to the earthly power at that time represented by Britain. Would 'we just think you're wrong and we don't want to pay your taxes anymore' have had the same meaning and effect?
Click to expand...
For a group of people who think that God is behind them to hear their 'enemy' throw their Gods philosophy back at them is a rather nice slap in the face?

I do not know why people use logical fallacies.
Perhaps to assist in driving a point home?
Perhaps because they do not know any better?
 
Buttercup

Buttercup

Veteran Member
lunamoth said:
Well you know that I agree with this completely Rhonda. I don't think you actually need everyone to agree for love to have an impact on the world. Of course, the more that agree, the greater the impact.
Click to expand...
Love for the common good isn't always going to be at the forefront of a group or individual person's agenda. Territory, food, power & control take precedence at times.

It's our job to promote peace where ever and however possible. I just don't expect it to be transcendent all the time. Not in this flawed world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top