• 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!

The Central Paradox of All Faiths

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
I think that the historical injustices done in the name of Christianity are of profound value for Christians today so that they may learn to correct in themselves the mistakes that were made in the past.

But as my OP suggests this is always working against the grain.

This is primarily because truth is not a static object but an ever moving target.
It seemed like the OPs premise puts forward the assumption of unestablished, informal, non-reformed, not formed, religion. What a great country, right? Most countries with religions used to be like Iran and the only question posed to the end subject is proper behavior, that makes you a member in a group, that's organized religion. Maybe he's interested in Buddhism. I've been curious about that. Did it invent enforced monogamy, family structure, the church wedding, suppression of thought, power structure, feudalism, divine right, bans of magic, chivalric combat?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Never heard of this before, but then I'm not familiar with that line of thinking. Why not just say God, if that's what you mean?
How I see it:
God is abstract, I mean we have no picture

So for the majority of humans it's difficult to develop Love for God. For those they have in Hinduism plenty of Names with forms. A 5 year old can relate to Ganesha, but most can't relate to God.

That's how the Name can be of help,
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
How I see it:
God is abstract, I mean we have no picture

So for the majority of humans it's difficult to develop Love for God. For those they have in Hinduism plenty of Names with forms. A 5 year old can relate to Ganesha, but most can't relate to God.

That's how the Name can be of help,

Anybody is free to use 'the Name' if they wish. It won't be happening here any time soon. I'll just call Ganesha Ganesha, except when I call Him Bijapuraphalasanktaya when He's getting a particular fruit.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Anybody is free to use 'the Name' if they wish. It won't be happening here any time soon. I'll just call Ganesha Ganesha, except when I call Him Bijapuraphalasanktaya when He's getting a particular fruit.
Yes, that's what I said
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Indeed. For many believers understanding this about their own faith makes it too fragile. But then again that faith is, perhaps, in something already too corrupted to make of it the benefit that was promised.

There is in all this a sense of development of one's spiritual understanding from the literal to the metaphorical to the trans-rational-meta-dual or whatever Ken Wilbur wants to call it.
My 'faith' is rooted in my experience; many religions are built on interpretations or stories about experiences...usually someone else's experience, and usually their stories/interpretations...and for a person who hasn't had the experiences, their faith may be uprooted when they have an experience.

Not a big fan of Wilbur...like so many other philosophers, to me, he and they come across as telling their stories and interpretations of experiences...

Also want to touch on the distinction between the "holy" or "sacred" and therefore subject of the Name. Sociologists of religion have long noted that in addition to the sacred, there is also the mundane and the profane, three broad categories to house all things. Religion, at least Western religion (at least some flavors of Abrahamic faiths) try to categorize all that is good as sacred and tie it to God, and everything else as mundane or positively profane, and therefore not of God and therefore worthy of being ignored or otherwise negated. I'm trying to unlearn that, as isn't what I've experienced.

I don't see these categories as being equated with Good or Bad (or Evil) and so on. Most things in the cosmos are indifferent, although they may still harm or help us. There are many things that we term Good, Evil, or indifferent (perhaps amoral, ajust...whatever) that may be worthy of veneration and worship.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Furthermore, since those depictions are ultimately tools for religious practice as opposed to some form of blueprint for cosmic projects of our own, we probably should not expect them to be very stable among different people or even different moments in time.
But I think that many people, many religions (the organizations), do think of their depictions as some form of blueprint for cosmic projects, and do expect everyone to tow their line...and THAT is where the problem comes, at least at the social level...maybe even at the individual level, at least in some cases....
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
How I see it:
God is abstract, I mean we have no picture

So for the majority of humans it's difficult to develop Love for God. For those they have in Hinduism plenty of Names with forms. A 5 year old can relate to Ganesha, but most can't relate to God.

That's how the Name can be of help,
From my perspective, most don't relate to Jesus, either...For me, the only way Jesus (and my experience of him) makes any sense at all is if he is kin, a relative...someone I could ask into my home and sit down to dinner with. My experience with Christians is that many, and especially the religious organizations (by no means all, because I've met many who seem to be similar to me, and many churches that don't) make Jesus instead of being a kinfolk into some sort of perfect being that has no similarity except bodily form...perfect and capable of things no human even if they would be willing to, could never to. That's not my experience with Jesus.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But I think that many people, many religions (the organizations), do think of their depictions as some form of blueprint for cosmic projects, and do expect everyone to tow their line...and THAT is where the problem comes, at least at the social level...maybe even at the individual level, at least in some cases....
I quite agree.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
What "grain" is that?

The grain that the good believer takes to heart the evil that is done but that undoes the value of the belief in the first place. So in faith, faith is challenged, defeated and perhaps transcended.

How does something true become untrue?
.

Like all things, through change.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
My 'faith' is rooted in my experience; many religions are built on interpretations or stories about experiences...usually someone else's experience, and usually their stories/interpretations...and for a person who hasn't had the experiences, their faith may be uprooted when they have an experience.

Not a big fan of Wilbur...like so many other philosophers, to me, he and they come across as telling their stories and interpretations of experiences...

Also want to touch on the distinction between the "holy" or "sacred" and therefore subject of the Name. Sociologists of religion have long noted that in addition to the sacred, there is also the mundane and the profane, three broad categories to house all things. Religion, at least Western religion (at least some flavors of Abrahamic faiths) try to categorize all that is good as sacred and tie it to God, and everything else as mundane or positively profane, and therefore not of God and therefore worthy of being ignored or otherwise negated. I'm trying to unlearn that, as isn't what I've experienced.

I don't see these categories as being equated with Good or Bad (or Evil) and so on. Most things in the cosmos are indifferent, although they may still harm or help us. There are many things that we term Good, Evil, or indifferent (perhaps amoral, ajust...whatever) that may be worthy of veneration and worship.

In a casual understanding of the Name it is just one of many "things". But a deeper, probably mystical understanding shows that the name is deeply involved in the existence of everything in some way or other. In this sense the mundane and profane are merged into the one Name.

I can easily qualify the OP by saying that this paradox does not necessarily define the meaning of why someone participates in a religion. For many religion is simply their community and their belief is like a style of how to express oneself politely, "God bless you".

But if those people had a notion to actually read their scripture or if they had an experience that they couldnt explain except through the lens of that religion, then I suspect something of the OP becomes deeply relevant.

When a persons life becomes a question mark the question of ultimate meaning and value arises...and demands an answer.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
It seemed like the OPs premise puts forward the assumption of unestablished, informal, non-reformed, not formed, religion. What a great country, right? Most countries with religions used to be like Iran and the only question posed to the end subject is proper behavior, that makes you a member in a group, that's organized religion. Maybe he's interested in Buddhism. I've been curious about that. Did it invent enforced monogamy, family structure, the church wedding, suppression of thought, power structure, feudalism, divine right, bans of magic, chivalric combat?

I'm not quite following what you are saying here. Are you saying that religion is really just about establishing moral behavior?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
But I think that many people, many religions (the organizations), do think of their depictions as some form of blueprint for cosmic projects, and do expect everyone to tow their line...and THAT is where the problem comes, at least at the social level...maybe even at the individual level, at least in some cases....

The Tower of Babel?

One person oriented to their ultimate understanding of the Name. But alone what can they accomplish? Then they find others to or who accept their understanding and now they have a partner in their efforts...so much more can now be accomplished and with such depth of passion.

But others are just as passionately moved by a different and non-compatible Name. Now there is a person or group of people who are standing in the way...because they are different. Anger, frustration follow, then conflict, war. The passion will out!

But the Creator seems to have established this as the Way. Or are we all merely holding on to some corruption of the Name beyond all Names?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I've had an audacious thought that naturally wants me to let it loose on the Internet...

The central revelation of all religion is the understanding and preservation of the meaning and value of the Name and that to which it refers. Meaning arises from the Name being good and valuable and in some way belonging to its knower. The meaning of the Name must not be sullied by associations with what is bad or of no value. In truth the Name pervades all things in such a way that the right mental effort yields value in all things THROUGH the Name.

The Name is knowable but not finally reducible to any other specific physical object or mental idea. It is, in this sense, immune to critique or corruption even as it is ephemeral in the extreme. Those who literalize or otherwise try to anchor the subject of the Name to an idea or physical reality create the potential for the corruption of that name. At the same time it requires a continuous diligence in our hearts and minds not to want to corrupt the Name in exactly this way.

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.
well yeah.....using the Name for lesser intents could be hazardous

I believe the Name is synonymous to......I AM!
as a declaration

and that declaration is synonymous to.....Let there be light!
as consequence to the action of Self awareness

and we should be careful as we approach that Name

I suspect …..It....responds to us
as if we are reflections

and if our reflections are not …..pleasant
if our reflection is blurred or distorted

the mirror can be broken
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yet ironically Jesus perfects us no matter how morally inept we are. As suppose even the least of us merely need to turn and face in the right direction.

No, I will NEVER be able to be perfect until I get power from Jesus, when I meet him. Let's be logical--I can be a Christian 1,000 years--and just as you shall--I will sometimes obey my conscience and sometimes disobey its promptings (sin, imperfection).

Because I trust Jesus for salvation, He will give me power to never sin anymore when I need it (to enter a moral and physical utopia where I cannot harm fellow citizens).
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
So how does the truth that on November 12, 2019 the moon was full become an untruth?

.

It's an earth-centric view certainly so it was only true for Earthlings to begin with.

Full of what? Cheese?

Not all truths change from completely totally true to completely totally not true. That probably never happens. There is always context, perspective, metaphor...

Will 2 + 2 = 4 always be true?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Think about it. Is the god, a name the God?

Is there a God that cannot be named? Is there a God that does not have a name?

Can we say something unnamed exists in a way that anyone else will know what we are talking about?

"Do you believe in ?"
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Is there a God that cannot be named? Is there a God that does not have a name?

Can we say something unnamed exists in a way that anyone else will know what we are talking about?

"Do you believe in ?"

Yes we can. If there is only one.
 
Top