The following things about your religion aren't special...

[viole]

I insist Christianity is a unique religion. Many of it teachings are beyond the intellect of men. IMO, that indicates they came from God. l That indicates there is a God.

You can say the same about scientology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

You can say the same about scientology.

Ciao

- viole

Yes they can, and then everyone get to determine if what they say is right.

 

[viole]

Yes they can, and then everyone get to determine if what they say is right.

So, do you agree that being unique, is not sufficient?

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

So, do you agree that being unique, is not sufficient?

Ciao

- viole

Of course, one can be uniquely wrong.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Psh. I'd like to see another religion who's God (one of) tied a rope around his testicles and played tug-of-war with a goat just for a laugh.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Psh. I'd like to see another religion who's God (one of) tied a rope around his testicles and played tug-of-war with a goat just for a laugh.

Wow. Who did that? Haven't heard that one before.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Wow. Who did that? Haven't heard that one before.

When Skaði went to Asgard to avenge the death of her father, Thiazi, three things were given to her. First, Odin took Thiazi's eyes and cast them into the sky, where they became stars. Second, the Gods attempted to make her laugh. Only Loki was able to do so by tying a rope to a goat's beard, and the other end to his testicles, and playing tug-of-war in such a fashion. She laughed. Third, a husband was given to her, but she had to choose her husband by his feet. So she wed Njörðr, thinking him to be Baldr.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

When Skaði went to Asgard to avenge the death of her father, Thiazi, three things were given to her. First, Odin took Thiazi's eyes and cast them into the sky, where they became stars. Second, the Gods attempted to make her laugh. Only Loki was able to do so by tying a rope to a goat's beard, and the other end to his testicles, and playing tug-of-war in such a fashion. She laughed. Third, a husband was given to her, but she had to choose her husband by his feet. So she wed Njörðr, thinking him to be Baldr.

I love it. Thanks.

 

[whirlingmerc]

there are things many might agree are right or wrong... maybe not all...but many

see

Lessons from the life and dangers of Jeremiah

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

"un-frees the slaves" is just another way of saying "Changed his mind, took a douche move and enslaved people again."

 

[Blackdog22]

I insist Christianity is a unique religion. Many of it teachings are beyond the intellect of men. IMO, that indicates they came from God. l That indicates there is a God.

Name just one that would be impossible for a man to come up with. I would like to debate that point, although maybe another thread would be better for this. That isn't to say I mind you posting it in this thread though

 

[Blackdog22]

Hmm. I would not make such an assumption, at least not from the angle you are likely approaching it from, as it does not hold to be accurate for many religions. I understand that in Western culture, the dominance of Protestant-style thought has led many to think that things like "belief" and "faith" are the central defining aspect of religions. As a result, we tend to be almost blind to the other components of religions that have little to do with either of those.

Even amongst those religious paths that are faith-based, there are different levels of believing oneself to be "right." There are: (1) exclusivists, who basically hold that they are right and everyone else is absolutely wrong, (2) inclusivists, who still believe they are the most righteous but see rightness in other traditions as well, and (3) pluralists, who deny this righteousness entirely and see rightness in all traditions. Pluralism and inclusivism is not uncommon in today's world, near as I've experienced (and studies done by groups like PEW seem to back this up). Pluralism is pretty much the default amongst my own religious demographic.

So I think it's really important to distinguish between the "I am right" and the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" and the "I am right and other people are sort of right" and the "I am right and so is everyone else." I'm not clear on whether or not you've been doing that or not.



Well, tradition and past life experiences are a powerful force. All people are shaped by their past legacies. If you are born in a community dominated by Protestant Christianity, odds are that will be your path. If you are born in a community dominated by Dharmic paths, odds are that will be yours too. Doesn't seem more complicated than that to me.

Correct me if I am wrong, but all of your points still take the base stance that they are right correct? That would of been the crux of what I was saying.

As far as believing out of tradition, good point! This is another reason people believe. Usually once they begin to truly take their belief seriously they hold onto better reasons, or at least I would hope, but as a child I believed only out of tradition and what I was brought up in. I couldn't imagine an adult believing for such a seemingly bad reason.

 

[Blackdog22]

Faith: strong belief that what you think, do, and say is what you are supposed to be doing.

I got my definition from the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 I think what was written about God and faith trumps the dictionary. Don't you?

Mmm, no part of that definition applies to ones belief in a God/gods. Thinking doing and saying are different than believing in a God. However, I can work with this definition because it includes belief which was exactly what I was saying before. This definition would also encompass why a terrorist would do what he does. I don't think we are at odds, but you made it seem so.

 

[Blackdog22]

I would say that faith is it's own proof.
It is the substance of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Yes, which would make literally anything unproven a proof by being unproven. How does this not sound completely uncompelling to you? If this is truly your stance, you would have to believe in everything or just be so selective that your line of logic would never be consistent within yourself or the definitions that you use. This is my problem with faith, if you think its good enough for your belief, its good enough for everyones belief and thus any rejection of other beliefs would simply be logically inconsistent.

 

[allfoak]

Yes, which would make literally anything unproven a proof by being unproven. How does this not sound completely uncompelling to you? If this is truly your stance, you would have to believe in everything or just be so selective that your line of logic would never be consistent within yourself or the definitions that you use. This is my problem with faith, if you think its good enough for your belief, its good enough for everyones belief and thus any rejection of other beliefs would simply be logically inconsistent.

I would say a belief in everything is possible.
Faith is something that is a part of everyone.
How one uses it is a choice.
What we believe is what we receive.

 

[Blackdog22]

I would say a belief in everything is possible.
Faith is something that is a part of everyone.
How one uses it is a choice.
What we believe is what we receive.

So two exclusive faiths could be reconciled in your point of view?

You can choose what you put your faith in, its just that by doing so, you have just accepted anything I can make up at this moment. You wouldn't from your pov I understand, but from a logically consistent pov that would be the case. To reject things that require faith, while also accepting things that require faith, seems to be a concept at odds with itself wouldn't you agree?

Your last point quote is interesting "What we believe is what we receive", I do believe that to some extent that what people put their faith in becomes reality for them. I think it is mental. You expect, your brain accepts, and then it puts into motions and hones in on things to make that belief a reality, in spite the possibility of that reality being completely false. The same as giving a man sugar pills and telling him it is morphine has the effects of morphine in many patients despite the fact that they never actually took morphine.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To reject things that require faith, while also accepting things that require faith, seems to be a concept at odds with itself wouldn't you agree?

Hardly. It would only mean that one finds no reason to put their faith in something, and finds reason to put their faith in something else. Believe it or not, faith does have reason to it.

 

[allfoak]

So two exclusive faiths could be reconciled in your point of view?

You can choose what you put your faith in, its just that by doing so, you have just accepted anything I can make up at this moment. You wouldn't from your pov I understand, but from a logically consistent pov that would be the case. To reject things that require faith, while also accepting things thati require faith, seems to be a concept at odds with itself wouldn't you agree?

I don't see the logic.

 

[Blackdog22]

Hardly. It would only mean that one finds no reason to put their faith in something, and finds reason to put their faith in something else. Believe it or not, faith does have reason to it.

Yes, however this way of going about things would just create a situation of many, many false concepts being held. Sort of like what we have today, or if you go further back, like what we had to a greater degree in the past. It is essentially believing in something because it feels good or rings true to the person hearing it, it has no basis in reality outside of that persons mind. This isn't inherently bad, it just seems to be a path to self delusion.

You could ask what is so bad about self delusion, and I suppose nothing, well, except when it leads to death. Outside of that however, it just strikes me as a very odd thing to do.

 

[allfoak]

So two exclusive faiths could be reconciled in your point of view?

You can choose what you put your faith in, its just that by doing so, you have just accepted anything I can make up at this moment. You wouldn't from your pov I understand, but from a logically consistent pov that would be the case. To reject things that require faith, while also accepting things that require faith, seems to be a concept at odds with itself wouldn't you agree?

Your last point quote is interesting "What we believe is what we receive", I do believe that to some extent that what people put their faith in becomes reality for them. I think it is mental. You expect, your brain accepts, and then it puts into motions and hones in on things to make that belief a reality, in spite the possibility of that reality being completely false. The same as giving a man sugar pills and telling him it is morphine has the effects of morphine in many patients despite the fact that they never actually took morphine.

All faith comes from the same place.
All paradox can be reconciled.