74x12
Well-Known Member
That is what people do. They make something up to suit themselves. What they should do is find out from God what's right.
-
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!
Just Making **** Up
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
Muffled
Jesus in me
I don't believe you are incapable of going to your wife's church. Of course if you have an untoward spirit that wouldn't work very well.
And this was, because of their religious beliefs or despite them?
It has nothing to do with that. I was refuting the claim that religious people cannot think critically, as they obviously can. It's not because of or despite anything, the thinker just happens to be religious.
Perhaps all it means is that they can be critical thinkers where necessary.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Welcome to the club.
(You may not have realized it yet, but you are most likely an Agnostic.)
leov
Well-Known Member
I have no piece of mind there as I have in some other places, I do not get spiritual food there. I used to attend similar churches but now evolved out
of it as per 1 Cor 2.
It means anyone of any religion or lackthereof can think critically. To dispute this would be an insult to millions of people the world over across thousands of years. Claiming that religious people can only critically think with regards to certain things is not only offensive and tantamount to calling them stupid or savants, it's demonstrably false and generally a myth peddled by atheists to throw shade at religious people just because said atheist doesn't grasp religious thought.
So also is the proposition that it took religion to do any of these achievements - which might be just as independently arrived at.
Yes, I agree that critical thinking is a process. But if the data and facts used are untrue, the conclusions are flawed.
But a critical thinker will always strive to determine correct data and facts and, over time, hopefully draw conclusions less and less untrue. This requires applying critical thinking to each fact and the facts that support that fact etc.
I have never, ever said this. Stop putting words in my mouth and read my posts.
Yes, they could. The fact that a religious person arrived at this conclusion is demonstrating this exact point. Anyone, of any faith, can critically think and reach a given conclusion - because their religion or lackthereof has nothing to do with it.
Yeah forgive me if I don't believe you. I could list here all the wonderful things religious people invented (printing press, hospitals, natural philosophy [biology], etc), all the theories they came up with (gravity, human rights, exploring G-d's world through scientific theory etc.) but I won't, since it would just wash over you.
Perhaps some took this as implying that religion was a factor here rather than just being incidental. I've seen it before - claims that religions were the causes of so many achievements when it might not have been the case. And being critical thinkers in one area hardly means one is in all areas.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
That is a good step forwards IMO. Much better than blind following some very ancient dubious books.
Yoga Vasistha even encourage this saying "Even if God tells you, but it does not feel good, you better discard it"
Where does my post say that it was because they were religious? I was responding, as I have already told you, to a claim that religious people cannot think critically and I brought examples of religious people thinking critically. You are reading way too much into this just because you want to see something that's not there.
Because very specific sects of religion say they must, in order to be saved themselves. (Usually Abrahamic faith based). Never met a prosletyzing Hindu or Pagan. But it may happen.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Religion should be a resource for those who wish to pursue a deeper level of meaning in their life or who have questions of meaning which trouble them more so than most. Spiritual questions, although they are often comparable to other spiritual questions, are also always personal. The whole point of spirituality is to find the you in the reality in which the you exists and to make that finding a meaningful, motivating and rewarding one.
Commonly organized religion, especially that wed to the temptation of social power and authority, stands in many ways against the spiritual journey. It seeks to turn the individual into a minion whose existence is to justify the social order and power of the church. But the reality is that we are a God-given diverse bunch and we ought, then, to embrace our subjectivity for only there will we find a sincere belief in anything we are taught or exposed to.
Religion should be a division of art, not science. Literalism is a disease, creativity and experience of the potential of humanity is the cure.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So what is it about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that makes it a "non-religion"?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
What does truth have to do with experience? You are making my point for me: your statement acknowledged the subjectivity of 'religious truth.'
But, religious truth usually has nothing to do with empirical truth ( in the scientific sense of 'that which conforms with reality.')
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
You can't quantify everything a person goes through and extrapolate data that accurately represents everything a person goes through and experiences.
Subjective expression is important.
Everyone developes their own intuitions about the unknown. Intuitions adapt as more truth is learned. So to it is natural for religion to adapt to the circumstances.
Many things are a shot in the dark in reality. So it's natural that people come up with things based on their own subjectivity.
Perhaps applying objectivity to subjectivity and comparing that to reality people can come up with some useful religious sense. Religion as a method perhaps.
It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be a physicalist about everything they experience subjectively. Nor do I think it's healthy.
The spiritual aspect of humanity has a powerful and valid expression. Even if no such realm exists, the ideas are important to those who hold them. And they take on a reality all their own, and have basis in the subjective reality.
I don't think people who are religious are faking it. They genuinely hold to their intuitions, and sense of what is logical and possible, or even actual.
Subjective expression is important.
Everyone developes their own intuitions about the unknown. Intuitions adapt as more truth is learned. So to it is natural for religion to adapt to the circumstances.
Many things are a shot in the dark in reality. So it's natural that people come up with things based on their own subjectivity.
Perhaps applying objectivity to subjectivity and comparing that to reality people can come up with some useful religious sense. Religion as a method perhaps.
It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be a physicalist about everything they experience subjectively. Nor do I think it's healthy.
The spiritual aspect of humanity has a powerful and valid expression. Even if no such realm exists, the ideas are important to those who hold them. And they take on a reality all their own, and have basis in the subjective reality.
I don't think people who are religious are faking it. They genuinely hold to their intuitions, and sense of what is logical and possible, or even actual.
