No, I don't care about being "literally" or "factually correct" as an approach to religion. As others have said, that's not the point.
-
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!
(Religion) Which is more important: to be factually correct or to be content?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A good approach to mythology is realizing that such stories are meant to inspire and motivate, rather than the crazy delusional notion people have into thinking that such outlandish mythology is real and had actually occurred in real life.Being "factually correct" is not and was never the point of religion, just as it is not and was never the point of art. Religion, the arts, the humanities? They're MYTHOS, not logos. And treating mythos as logos (or vice versa) is stupid. Forgivable in a culture that doesn't bother to teach the difference between the two, but still stupid.
See:
Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong
Karen Armstrong: Should we believe in belief?: Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religionwww.theguardian.com
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Good Sage advice is recognizing and identifying what actually works and is not broken and ineffective.
As a Muslim your believe is invalid without certitude and sincerity. This means believing in all that stated in the scripture and in the authenticated sayings of the prophet and hence, behaving according to the instructions. Those in doubt, gain nothing. They follow a mirage to get to water.
As a Muslim your believe is invalid without certitude and sincerity. This means believing in all that stated in the scripture and in the authenticated sayings of the prophet and hence, behaving according to the instructions. Those in doubt, gain nothing. They follow a mirage to get to water.
Not that important at all. The goal of Hinduism is character improvement with the ultimate goal of moksha. It is WAY more about practice than belief, and that is a major difference between the Abrahamic paradigm and the dharmic paradigm. Many Hindus do all kinds of practice, but have never read a single scripture, and asked about what they believe about God, would have a hard time explaining anything at all. Best wishes.
I think that one will be happier if he confronts truth and reality and allows himself to mature outside of the dictates of religions that prefer him in his childish state - engaging in magical thinking, accepting claims as fact for lack of critical thinking skills, and feeling insecure, helpless, and vulnerable.
If allowed to, one can come to accept the likeliness of his own mortality and that there is nobody looking over him or that loves him that doesn't live on the surface of earth with him. This is harder than wrapping oneself in an ism of easy answers and short-term comfort, but the reward is tremendous. Atheistic humanism removes the horrors of death and teaches self-reliance and critical thinking.
You mentioned accepting a false religion for peace of mind. My advice: don't. Stand up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals.
Because as far as we know, that's how it is. And the reward is orders of magnitude greater than the psychological investment in getting there.
Facts are the domain of the intellect. There is another kind of intelligence. As Rumi said
There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.
With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.
There is another kind of tablet,
one already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through the conduits of plumbing-learning.
This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.
-- Version by Coleman Barks
Echogem222
Active Member
My religion is not proven as true (Flawlessism), but I believe in it because of how it benefits me. That aside, if someone were to disprove it as possibly true, then I wouldn't be able to believe in it anymore since I would know it's false. I was once a Christian, and I had always convinced myself that the bible was true even when people would raise valid points to me, thinking I should just have faith in it anyway, not really listening to what they were saying, preventing them from ever disproving it to me. Unlike before, I do listen (unless the person is acting like a jerk, as that implies they don't actually care about myself finding truth, they just want to cause problems for me, but even people like that I don't always ignore if it sounds like they're making a good point).
This is just my estimated guess, but I don't think you actually have an issue with having faith in a religion, you have an issue with not having your trust in something betrayed again, not fully understanding why you believed in Christianity in the first place. I think if you did some self-reflecting, you might learn to appreciate a religion again in a healthier way this time.
That is such a nihilistic thing to say. Or maybe it is just a criticism of the idea of religion that you hold as true?
Viker
Häxan
On a scale of 1 to 10.....a zero.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Religion is not automatically relevant and protected from misguidance.
Like any other movement, it has a duty to care for its own health and the quality of what it teaches.
Presuming that it is right and calling it a day is not helpful there.
Like any other movement, it has a duty to care for its own health and the quality of what it teaches.
Presuming that it is right and calling it a day is not helpful there.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What I was getting at is that the underlying assumption (held by the believer) in most religions is that they represent the truth.
If Jesus is not God, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if Muhammad is not a prophet, if the atman and samsara don't exist... There is no reason to follow any of those religions.
Audie
Veteran Member
No prob then, as zero is actually
authenticated.
Speaking of " mirsge" leading nowhere!
Audie
Veteran Member
Plenty of reason not to.
I think it comes down to how central the tales of a religion's origins is to the religion itself.
It varies.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Not just the tales. If nirvana is unachievable, if the Torah doesn't contain God's laws...
Audie
Veteran Member
Truth built on lies?