Is it possible to cherry pick and follow what you like?

[Ponder This]

False.

“Eclectic.” Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eclectic. Accessed 2017.

You may wish to expand your understanding of how "cherry-pick" is used vs how "eclectic" is used.
An eclectic art collection has many different pieces from various sources.
A cherry-picked art collection consists of a selection of chosen pieces.

Start by not cherry-picking your definition of eclectic.

 

[Deidre]

It a very easy thing to do: to just take the parts you "like", whether it's finding "value" or making you feel good.

The point is that real investigation is difficult. Maybe you just want affirmation that what you are doing is "okay" or "right": that people can take whatever they want from wherever and apply it however they want. But that's not the sort of affirmation a person gets when he doesn't commit to a group. And there's no way for anyone to tell if you are applying any of these valuable insights in a truly useful way.

So it's up to you. You have to self-evaluate and decide if you are doing it because it's easy or because there is real wisdom there. I could just tell you that because there is value in every faith, it's fine to be eclectic, but it doesn't really address the question of whether the best way is to just take whatever you like and throw away what you don't like (aka "cherry picking").

Who are you to judge me?

 

[Thief]

You're right, we can't serve two masters, but why can't we glean insights from other faiths? I realize the title of my thread might be a bit off, but by ''follow'' I meant, applying certain insights and principles to one's life. Should one feel that he/she is betraying their belief system, simply because they glean some valuable insights from another (possibly opposing) religion? Take for example, Islam. I explored this with interest a few years ago. There are a great many positive insights that can be found in Islam, and Christianity yet both are somewhat opposed to one another, since Muslims don't believe in the Trinity, nor does Islam teach that Jesus died for mankind's sins. Does that mean that the entirety of Islam should be ignored by a Christian? I mean, one doesn't have to like any of it, but all I'm saying is that you don't have to follow a particular faith or adhere to its tenets, to think it offers some valuable advice and insight for your own life.

so you are seeking the good belief....in everyone

I see no need to rebuttal further

 

[Deidre]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as one recognises that it's their own eclectic path and not call it [religion name].

I don't think there's a truth, a religion which has all of the answers. A lot of religions make that claim but I've never found any that was The Truth. They say they have proof, often these are incredibly similar to each other, some old scripture, supposed prophets that claiming divine messages were directly told to them, supposed prophecy fulfilled, people claiming miracles, lives supposedly changed, etc. The more I look into it, the more I see a repeating pattern emerge. Like I said, it is of religions which claim to be the one path to follow, other religions can be less dogmatic and not make such claims.

It doesn't mean that there's nothing of value within the religions. I just think that there's a lot of outdated morals and teachings in them. Instead of letting humans progress, they're making them stagnate. One can learn from the good bits and apply the useful teachings without stopping the evolution of our ethics.

So true! And, it seems like the stagnation is coming from mankind oppressing other men, and ''blaming'' God. Or pinning moral codes that only affect one group, on God. (when it's really man's moral code)

Even if though, someone wishes to adhere to the tenets of one religion - let's say someone is a devout Catholic for example - that doesn't mean he/she can't find common ground with other religions, faiths, etc. It's the common ground thing that makes the difference, I think?

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon - Hi, did you recommend for me to read a book in this thread? I thought you did, but it might have been someone else. I would like to examine your beliefs, I'm not all that familiar with the Baha'i faith.

I did not recommend a book, but the following website is a good place to start.

www.bahai.org/

 

[SalixIncendium]

You may wish to expand your understanding of how "cherry-pick" is used vs how "eclectic" is used.
An eclectic art collection has many different pieces from various sources.
A cherry-picked art collection consists of a selection of chosen pieces.

Start by not cherry-picking your definition of eclectic.

You may wish to expand your understanding on how "cherry-pick" is used and how "eclectic" is used in the context of this thread.

An eclectic art collection is a collection of chosen pieces of art "cherry-picked" from various sources. They are not a collection of all the pieces from various sources.

 

[Ponder This]

Who are you to judge me?

I just said I couldn't judge you.... it's up to you. You have to self-evaluate; it's not something anyone else can do for you...

And there's no way for anyone to tell if you are applying any of these valuable insights in a truly useful way.

So it's up to you. You have to self-evaluate and decide if you are doing it because it's easy or because there is real wisdom there.

 

[Deidre]

I just said I couldn't judge you.... it's up to you. You have to self-evaluate; it's not something anyone else can do for you...

Okay, maybe I misunderstood your post.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Since you said we can proselytize I would like to put forth a form of theism instead of a religion. I propose classical polytheism or hard polytheism as they say. I am doing this since I think it would potentially solve any conflict you may have toward religion and where you stand. So considering this shameless proselytizing for not my religion but my stance on religion as a whole.

To quickly stamp some conflicts in theism:

I think that if you can look at religion and the world you will see conflict of every sort. If the world is divinely created it has been done so by a multitude of gods, and if the gods care for this world then their interests must conflict as well. God cannot have multiple faces because if that was the case then each of these embodiments must be in unison and the world would be orderly but if these deities were independent then chaos would be permissible.

Think of this framework as your solution to the problem of evil along with the teleological argument.

Moving along with morality, morality is subjective the same way gods are subjective. Different gods permits different emphasis on morality, case closed.



Now as to why a multitude of gods would be most likely the case for the existence of divinity or correlated to proof of divinity:

Simply put, the universality of gods in society. Forms like squares exist and we can conceive of squares yet nobody conceives of a different square and on top of this what we conceive does not change our own matter or mind in any way. We can also conceive of things that are absolute like mathematics yet we do not have a physical form to mathematics. Considering that nonmaterial things do exist and show universality in both form and thought it can be conceived that a multitude of non physical entities exist besides mathematics and logic. If physical minds can conceive of them then assuredly they posses knowledge or the ability to find metaphysical entities.

Many forms must be default contain properties like color, since color must be applied to matter in order to exist, such as lightwaves or acrylic paints. On the other hand if our minds were mere matter than they would assume the form they perceive of, for example abstractions like circles would causes circles in our minds but they do not since our brains are physical and through patterns of potential metaphysical reasons do exhibit consciousness. If we are aware that there is a multitude of brains/people then why not a multitude of disembodied minds or conscious entities?

If abstractions have forms which are definable like mathematics and have properties, also like mathematics and the universe is built in accordance to such principles than could the universe not contain a multitude of abstraction that are existent like again, MATHEMATICS.


I am sorry if my argument is confusing but I do not posses the notebook to my original ontological argument