• 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!

absolute truth

Runt

Well-Known Member
Alaric, saying that every religion does not hold some glimmer of Truth (whether scientific or archetypal) is like saying that each person, no matter how bad, does not have something "good" about them. Even a serial killer may have something "good" about them--perhaps the ability to create new life with their body or the ability to love, for example--and to say that they have nothing viable or respectable in their "nature" is bull.

The point? Most religions are probably pretty much blatantly "false" (they can't all be completely true at the same time, so they must all be almost completely false, only touching on universal or scientific Truth here and there) and many have "negative" things associated with them, i.e. cruel gods, cruel treatment of people of other beliefs, times when they promote activities that are ridiculous, downright dangrous, or harmful, moral systems that are harmful to society, etc. Yet, just like people, there is something "good" about each one.

Now imagine some highly unlikely future where humanity has evolved socially and morally (and perhaps physically and mentally as well) and formed a global society. If religion still exists at this time (and I suspect that it would, not as religion but as a recognition of a symbolic, archetypal reality), most of the "bad" things about world religions would probably have already been thrown out the window, leaving only the universal truths (metaphorical scientific truths and symbolic archetypal truths). Such a global society could easily take all this "good stuff" and use it as some "world philosophy"... but by then they probably wouldn't even need to, because by then individual humans would probably be able to recognize valid "Truths" when they saw them. Meaning, religion would be eliminated, but the Truths revealed by religion (or hidden within it, for that matter) would exist and hold validity without it.
 
every religion has some truth in it. only one religion is absolute. the first parousia will be when all religions unite. the second when asia is evangelized. false prophets predict doom and gloom as read from proverbs. there will not be a rapture(doom and gloom) nor three days of darkness. onl;y good prophecy will come true. the church will be united by 2021. good prophecy is miraculous sometimes. nothing is imposssible with God as it's author.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Sorry jonjohnrob11... I have to disagree... no religon is absolute... there is no absolute anything... but if we're going to talk about prophecy then you better move your schedual ahead some... the Mayan Calander (one of the most accurate ever invented) predicts the 'end of the world/cycle" in 2012 8)

wa:-do
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
jonjohnrob11 said:
every religion has some truth in it. only one religion is absolute.

I suppose you're talking about Christianity, but... lol, which branch of Christianity is the ABSOLUTE? They can't all be absolute, because they are all different, and at times contradict. Meaning none of them are absolute, but some may hold a little glimmer of truth that all can agree on.

Just like every other religion.

jonjohnrob11 said:
nothing is imposssible with God as it's author.

Too bad the Bible was written by men.
 

Alaric

Active Member
Runt said:
Alaric, saying that every religion does not hold some glimmer of Truth (whether scientific or archetypal) is like saying that each person, no matter how bad, does not have something "good" about them.
I wasn't very clear in the last post, but I meant that you shouldn't have respect for a religion just because it has some socially or scientifically acceptable elements within it. A religion is a complete worldview - like I've said before, the 'truths' offered only hold if the whole thing holds. It simply doesn't work to say that each religion holds some part of the truth and if we put them all together we'll discover the whole thing.

Runt & Painted Wolf,
What we need is a method for discovering and evaluating the different ideas that religions offer. If a religion contains some truths, how do we know them when we see them? By detached critical analysis! The interesting question for me is, is there anything about faith, or the commitment to or practising of a religion, that gives you insight into reality that you otherwise couldn't discover? Can it pay to believe in something that on the face of it seems irrational, and if so, how?

That's why I want people to be more critical of their ideas. There is only one reality, so what you believe must apply equally to everyone else, and you must have reasons why it is 'right' and the others are wrong. When you make a statement, you should have some idea of how 'normal' it is, and if you know it is kind of out of the ordinary, I of course expect that you have thought about it and have some good answers to the questions that you must expect everyone to ask.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Alaric said:
I wasn't very clear in the last post, but I meant that you shouldn't have respect for a religion just because it has some socially or scientifically acceptable elements within it.

On one hand I agree with you. Some religions that either totally turn the world on its head or condone harming others don't seem deserving of respect. Yet, at the same time, just as some people don't seem worthy of respect for similar reasons (they're just plain stupid or just plain cruel), I always TRY to see some good in them. I guess you could say that I "respect" them... I personally look at it more along the lines of respecting the person while condemning the things that they do that are wrong (or stupid). When it comes to looking at a religion, I think sort of like this. "Overall I do not believe in, and cannot approve of, the beliefs of __________ religion, but they DO have a couple beliefs that I find meritorious, EVEN IF I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE TRUE." One of those beliefs, for example, is the Wiccan belief that whatever you do (magical or otherwise) comes back to you times three. A kind of karma that plays out in THIS lifetime. I personally don't see there being anything more mystical than cause and effect. I don't think every bad action I do will AUTOMATICALLY yield me bad results that are three times worse. But I see value in the belief, because behind the belief is an important lesson about getting along with others in our society, and in an odd way it DOES address cause and effect and the fact that there are consequences for our actions. Overall, however, I find Wicca as a religion ridiculous (not harmful, just ridiculous)... and I was RAISED Wiccan!

What we need is a method for discovering and evaluating the different ideas that religions offer. If a religion contains some truths, how do we know them when we see them? By detached critical analysis!

That's kind of the way I do it. You have to understand that I was pagan for several years, then atheist for a couple, and then I saw that there was value to religion that I hadn't noticed before, a system of useful metaphors and ways of looking at life that, while not necessarily being entirely factual themselves, had hidden truth. Because I was, for a while, looking at the world through atheist eyes, choosing beliefs that I found valid was not simply a process of "Oh, there's a comfortable spiritual idea!" Others seem to embrace beliefs that will give them the most comfortable afterlife or will make them feel superior to people without the same beliefs. I didn't like comfortable answers, so the journey to my own spirituality involved a little more "detached critical analysis" than it probably did for some others. If I see no reason to believe something, I discard it. Perhaps I'm an atheist who sees the world through archetypes and metaphors that just happen to have their origins in religion? Even my "God" doesn't seem to quite be "mystical" enough...for I don't worship it.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I think you can respect what is good about an idea/religion and not agree with the bad parts...
like most people I know.. they have traits I like, which make me like them and they have traits that I don't like wich make me roll my eyes in frustration...
I have friends who smoke...I don't agree with smoking.. should I stop being friends with them?
Should I hate/disrespect all religions because they don't all seem perfect to me?
seems a bit overbord to me... :roll:

wa:-do
 
love is a universal relligion. it tears down walls, builds friendships, makes friends out of enemies, pays the bills, makes the world revolve, etc. it has no limitations.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
>>Can it pay to believe in something that on the face of it seems irrational, and if so, how? <<

Emotion is irrational... can we believe in that?
I cant explain why I love my husband, except perhaps in terms of hormones and chemical excreations in the brain... my love is irrational...
does that make it invalid?
My love bennifits me by providing me with warmth and security that can only be gained by a close personal relationship with another person...
Perhaps religon works in the same way?

wa:-do
 

Alaric

Active Member
Runt & PW,
I hope you don't think so, but being an atheist doesn't mean thinking religions are all completely useless and wrong. I wouldn't be here if I thought that. You two speak of religion like an ideology, which is inaccurate. Of course a socialist can easily find redeeming features in liberalism and conservatism - she simply prioritizes differently. Religions are not ideologies or value systems, they are worldviews built around some fundamental notions of truth from which all their beliefs and values arise. The Ten Commandments aren't truths by themselves, they are only truths if God exists and gave us the Laws because He had built the world in such a way as to make those laws the ultimate Law. If you like the idea of a law saying 'Don't kill', or 'Love your neighbour', then you are saying that those laws have value independently of the religion. And even better, if they are valid independently of the religion, then you can find other useful maxims by yourself! Religions are useful for historical, anthropological and social reasons, but also as worldviews from which to get lots of good ideas. Then you take those ideas OUT of the religion, analyse them separately, and include them in your own worldview.

All that can only be done if you're outside of religion. If you commit yourself to one, then you have to swallow the whole thing hook, line, and sinker, to the exclusion of any alternative ideas that would contradict your chosen religion. You can't call yourself a Christian if you disagree with Jesus on some points, for example. You can, however, be an atheist who agrees with some lessons of Jesus, but then you are applying worldly ethics to the lessons, rather than justifying it via God, as Jesus did.

But you should never let your feelings get in the way of your perception of reality. Just because something sounds really nice doesn't make it true; but usually any kind of standards can be justified logically, so don't think that gods or spirits need to exist for people to be good to each other. If you think the world is uncaring and greedy, or blind and zombie-like, or weak and lazy, then you don't need to commit yourself to a religion that seems to fight for the same ends, because the religion is based on falsities. Better to justify your views using reason! Environmentalists don't need to believe in Gaia, they are just people who at the moment are convinced that humanity is abusing nature.

PW, love is that feeling you experience, so noone can deny that it's there. If love is just the result of chemicals that can be analyzed, then that proves that love is real, not unreal! However, belief and the object of your belief are not the same thing. Love is like the feeling that God exists, and noone denies that the feeling is there, only that God is there. Get my drift? Like, we could believe that you love your husband, but not believe that your husband exists until you prove it.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
perhaps then our religons/faiths are more open-minded than most... I certenly get the notion that UU is open to any ideas... :lol:

what if I can justify my views with both reason and religon?
Do they have to exclude one another?

wa:-do
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
But Alaric, what about the religions that don't require you to adhere to every principle they teach (Wicca, for example, allows its followers to pick and choose their beliefs and still call themselves Wiccan)? What about religions that don't have any particular religious beliefs (other than ones that are also social beliefs) but still see a spiritual side of life and allow people to explore it independently (Unitarian Universalism)? What about the religions that seem to explain the world in an abstract, but true, manner (Taoism)? The latter two in particular are more "secular" and focus on "universal truths" and yet are religions... but they have value as religions because they allow people to get together and practice as they please, they encourage individual study, and offer a system (or series of systems) of exploring Truth in a responsible manner. Did it ever occur to you that some atheists could just as easily claim the label of the latter two religions, Unitarian Universalism and Taoism, without having to change their worldview at all? Why must it be those who choose to follow a worldview that offers them a MEANS to explore Truth without pressing a particular Truth upon them be the ones to change their label?
 
pw: there are many emotions. rationalizing why a sin is comitted instead of apologizing is not the answer. irrational means u need to apologize and can't find an excuse. passion is for love making. these are three different types of emotions.
also there is logic and illogic. God is both. for instance it's both logical and illogical that the universe doesn't end. it can't, cause there is always the beyond. Hubble made up some equations portraying our universe as expanding, but what is it expanding into. if the known galaxies are expanding maybe others are coming our way----ha!
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
jonjohnrob11-

I don't believe in 'sin' so I don't agonize about them... If I do something that harms another person then I apologize 8)

as for what is outside our univerce and what it may or may not run into... there are theories about other univerces just outside our own... making our univerce finite by the way...
pocket universes I belive is the term I'm looking for although it may be the 'soap bubble theory'

wa:-do
 

Alaric

Active Member
Runt said:
Did it ever occur to you that some atheists could just as easily claim the label of the latter two religions, Unitarian Universalism and Taoism, without having to change their worldview at all?
What do mean, 'Did it ever occur to you', I've been saying this all along! Maybe we need to clarify two different opposites here. One is that theists believe in God or gods, and atheists don't. The other is that the religious believe in faith, the rational don't. I.e. one is about a current belief, the other is way in which you search for the truth. If you want to look for the truth, expand your mind, know yourself, be one with the earth etc etc as any sane person does, you have two choices - either blindly accept a worldview as proscribed by someone else, and seek the truth within that (i.e. Christians may learn to interpret the Bible, but do not question the Bible itself) OR step OUTSIDE of religion and use those religions, and other people's ideas, and science, and logic, and experience, to find the truth.

Perhaps we could say that Wiccanism, Taoism etc are certain worldviews that have been arrived at using reason. However, they are not methods of searching the truth in themselves, but merely suggestions of the truth as others have come up with. Maybe all the people that believe in natural spirits can call themselves Wiccan, I don't know or care, as long as they realise that they have to use the same criteria to judge the religion as with everything else. You should read up on Wiccanism, analyse their claims, see what evidence they use to back their claims, then take what makes sense and move on. But that is not the same as being Wiccan, I hope.

If you want the truth, surely Wiccanism is just one suggestion - why stop there? Unless actually practising Wiccanism, or Taoism, through meditation or applying their morality, helped discover new truths that couldn't be found otherwise. But that is one hell of a claim - how can they justify it? What do say about that?
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
Meditation in Taoism helps clear the mind so to understand the Tao better. But one first understands the self better. One cannot meditate and understand the Tao before understanding the self. And yes, Taoism is a means to understanding this. But this means does help discover new truths. Its called enlightenment.
 
pw: have u ever experienced sorrow for hurting urself or someone else?

i define universe all space without bounds because there is always something on the other side or beyond. new stars appear occaisionally so i read, which means their light has finally reached our planet which means the universe is billions of years old, and it is bound by time, unlike heaven. purgatory, hell and the universe is bound by time.

since u apologize to people, how do u feel when u do that.
 
In my humble opinion (this shouldn't surprise Maize, Runt, Alaric, and others 8) ) the way you come closest to absolute truth is through- Science! (go science) It's not perfect, and it can be improved upon- however, it's a MUCH more reliable way of ascertaining the truth than faith is.

Ultimately, if we "look inside ourselves" for spiritual "truth", we'll never get anywhere-everyone has their own feelings and opinions and biases. The scientific method is designed specifically to handle this problem by requiring observation, testing, and the proposing of theories which can later be proven or disproven to overcome our personal prejudices and beliefs and get to the bottom of things.

Back in the day, people's internal spiritual "truth" told them that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that epilepsy was caused by demons, and so on. We take it for granted that the basic "absolute" truths which we have all come to know and love through science (like the fact that the solar system is not geocentric) were once extremely controversial theories which were despised by the religious because it challenged religious doctrine.

Religion has had to yeild to science time and again, because people generally recognize that laws and theories which came about scientifically (like the heliocentric solar system) are far superior to those arrived at "religiously" (whatever that means). In order to maintain any relevance to the truth at all, religions have had to resort to only preaching about what science can not yet prove or cannot (yet) disprove. Many religions like the Catholic Church have started basing/adapting religious doctrines to scientific findings. As the years go by, religion will have less and less relevance to how we come to absolute truth, and science will only gain more and more knowledge as things which were once considered purely metaphysical become things which can be subjected to new scientific developments.
 
I think it's fair to point out that religions do have some truth in them- they do help people make sense of the world and of themselves. The geocentric universe did describe what people observed every day (in addition to confirming their religious convictions). And I don't think science is infallible. However, science always trumps religion when the two are in conflict.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
mr_spinkles
some anchient people did pretty good.. especally considering they didn't have the benifit of microscopes and such...
figuring out the earth is round(egypt among others), how to predict eclipses(mayans), and brain surgery(inca) among other things. 8)

idealy science and religion can co-exist by focusing on thier respective strenghts...
science explaining the physical world
religion explaining the 'metaphysical world' if you will and how we fit in both it and the physical.

jonjohn-
I feel bad if I do something unintentional to harm another... if I do it on purpose then no, I don't worry about feeling bad... If I do it intentionally then they did something to earn it.

wa:-do
 
Top